| Page Range | 44879-45172 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 45161 - Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats | |
| 82 FR 45159 - Gold Star Mother's and Family's Day, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 45024 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 45015 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for June 2017 | |
| 82 FR 44936 - Fluazifop-P-Butyl; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 82 FR 44942 - Oxathiapiprolin; Pesticide Tolerance | |
| 82 FR 45042 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Quality Control Requirements for Direct Endorsement Lenders | |
| 82 FR 45041 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Loan Sales Bidder Qualification Statement | |
| 82 FR 45044 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Loan Sales Bidder Qualification Statement | |
| 82 FR 45019 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for July 2017 | |
| 82 FR 45040 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD-Owned Real Estate Dollar Home Sales Program | |
| 82 FR 44925 - Withholding on Payments of Certain Gambling Winnings | |
| 82 FR 45041 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Housing Assistance Restructuring Program (Mark to Market) | |
| 82 FR 45044 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Rehabilitation Mortgage Insurance Underwriting Program Section 203(k) | |
| 82 FR 45043 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act Reporting Requirements | |
| 82 FR 45010 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants-State-Level Activity Funds | |
| 82 FR 44994 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 44994 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Non-Commercial Permit and Reporting Requirements in the Main Hawaiian Islands Bottomfish Fishery | |
| 82 FR 44879 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas LLC, Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, Renewal of Initial Certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 Through 11, 13, Revision 1, and 14 | |
| 82 FR 44971 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas LLC, Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, Renewal of Initial Certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 Through 11, 13, Revision 1, and 14 | |
| 82 FR 45023 - Change in Filing Location for Commercial Overnight Documents FCC Warehouse Address Change | |
| 82 FR 44999 - Arms Sales Notification | |
| 82 FR 45072 - Requirements Regarding Mandatory Review for Declassification | |
| 82 FR 44886 - Small Business Size Standards; Adoption of 2017 North American Industry Classification System for Size Standards | |
| 82 FR 45109 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Wisconsin | |
| 82 FR 45109 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of ILLINOIS | |
| 82 FR 45005 - Arms Sales Notification | |
| 82 FR 45038 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 45035 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 45116 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, 2017/2018 | |
| 82 FR 45074 - Regulatory Guide: “Physical Inventories and Material Balances at Fuel Cycle Facilities” | |
| 82 FR 45073 - Emergency Planning for Research and Test Reactors and Other Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities | |
| 82 FR 44984 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Whiting; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 21-3; Trawl Rationalization Program | |
| 82 FR 45032 - Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, Part F AIDS Education and Training Centers | |
| 82 FR 44993 - Determination of Overfishing or an Overfished Condition | |
| 82 FR 45025 - Notice of Agreement Filed | |
| 82 FR 45011 - Extension of the Application Deadline Date for Certain Fiscal Year 2018 Education Research and Special Education Research Grant Programs | |
| 82 FR 45031 - Advisory Committee; National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee; Renewal | |
| 82 FR 45009 - Notice of Proposed Methodology for the 2018 Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment Report | |
| 82 FR 45013 - Application for Presidential Permit; Central Maine Power Company | |
| 82 FR 45008 - Notice of Availability of The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study-Brandon Road Draft Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement-Will County, Illinois | |
| 82 FR 44993 - U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 45111 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple TTB Information Collection Requests | |
| 82 FR 45111 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; TARP Capital Purchase Program-Executive Compensation | |
| 82 FR 45029 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 45023 - Notice of Issuance of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts (SFFAC) 8, Federal Financial Reporting | |
| 82 FR 45026 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 45027 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 45008 - Record of Decision for Final Supplement I to the Final Environmental Statement, Mississippi River Between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers (Regulating Works), Missouri and Illinois | |
| 82 FR 44995 - Board of Visitors, United States Military Academy (USMA) | |
| 82 FR 45024 - Disability Advisory Committee; Announcement of Next Meeting | |
| 82 FR 44918 - Remedial Action Schemes Reliability Standard | |
| 82 FR 45014 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 45110 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Laura W. Bush Traveling Fellowship | |
| 82 FR 45030 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection (ICR-Rev) (OMB Approval Number 0985-0004); Title III Supplemental Form to the Financial Status Report (SF-425) | |
| 82 FR 45071 - Information Collection: Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material | |
| 82 FR 44929 - Special Local Regulation; Fautasi Ocean Challenge Canoe Race, Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa | |
| 82 FR 45040 - Approval of Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., Toa Baja, PR, as a Commercial Gauger | |
| 82 FR 45039 - Approval of American Cargo Assurance, Pasadena, TX, as a Commercial Gauger | |
| 82 FR 45012 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Report of Infants and Toddlers Receiving Early Intervention Services and of Program Settings Where Services Are Provided in Accordance With Part C, and Report on Infants and Toddlers . . . | |
| 82 FR 45011 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Annual State Application Under Part C of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act as Amended in 2004 | |
| 82 FR 45009 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; State Lead Agency Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements Under Part C of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) | |
| 82 FR 45069 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 82 FR 45023 - Opening of Second Filing Window for Eligible Full Power and Class A Television Stations | |
| 82 FR 45033 - Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections | |
| 82 FR 45029 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; State Plan for Grants to States for Refugee Resettlement | |
| 82 FR 45070 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under CERCLA | |
| 82 FR 44998 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 45067 - Certain Basketball Backboard Components and Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation in Its Entirety Based on a Settlement Agreement; Termination of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 44999 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 45114 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Supplement to VA Forms 21-526, 21P-534, and 21P-535 (For Philippine Claims) | |
| 82 FR 45113 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Applications & Appraisals for Employment for Title 38 Positions and Trainees | |
| 82 FR 45112 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Certification of School Attendance-REPS | |
| 82 FR 44996 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Acquisition of Information Technology | |
| 82 FR 44997 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Taxes | |
| 82 FR 45028 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 44917 - Commission Guidance on Pay Ratio Disclosure | |
| 82 FR 45039 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 45038 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 45036 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 45085 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 980NY (Electronic Complex Order Trading) To Clarify the Priority of Electronic Complex Orders and To Modify Aspects of Its Complex Order Auction Process | |
| 82 FR 45080 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the GraniteShares Platinum Trust Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 | |
| 82 FR 45099 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 7.31E Relating to the Minimum Trade Size Modifier for Additional Order Types and Expanding the Minimum Trade Size Modifier for Existing Order Types | |
| 82 FR 45103 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the iShares Inflation Hedged Corporate Bond ETF, a Series of the iShares U.S. ETF Trust, Under Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares | |
| 82 FR 45095 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Update and Amend its Options Rules, as Described Herein, To Reduce Unnecessary Complexity and To Promote Standardization and Clarity | |
| 82 FR 45095 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt the Midpoint Extended Life Order | |
| 82 FR 45106 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filings of Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt the Clearing Agency Securities Valuation Framework | |
| 82 FR 45045 - Softwood Lumber Products From Canada; Revised Schedule for the Subject Investigations | |
| 82 FR 45070 - Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health: Joint Subcommittee Meeting Between Subcommittee on Medical Advice Re: Weighing Medical Evidence and Subcommittee on Industrial Hygienists (IH) & Contract Medical Consultants (CMC) and Their Reports | |
| 82 FR 44986 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 45045 - Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records | |
| 82 FR 45046 - Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records | |
| 82 FR 45068 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 82 FR 44982 - Rules of General Application | |
| 82 FR 45032 - Request for Comments on the Draft Department Strategic Plan for FY 2018-2022 | |
| 82 FR 44879 - Freedom of Information Act Regulations; Correction | |
| 82 FR 44966 - Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan; Redistricting and Importer Representation | |
| 82 FR 44879 - Privacy Act Regulations; Correction | |
| 82 FR 45033 - Meeting of the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 45034 - Request for Public Comment: 60 Day Notice for Extension of Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery: IHS Customer Service Satisfaction and Similar Surveys | |
| 82 FR 45027 - Draft-National Occupational Research Agenda for Construction | |
| 82 FR 45025 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 45110 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Auburn Aviation | |
| 82 FR 45079 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB Review | |
| 82 FR 45025 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 44984 - Air Plan Approval; Delaware; State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone Standard | |
| 82 FR 44932 - Air Plan Approval; Delaware; State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone Standard | |
| 82 FR 45076 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 82 FR 44915 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Midland, TX and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Odessa, TX and Midland, TX | |
| 82 FR 44914 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Louisiana Towns; Leesville, LA; and Patterson, LA | |
| 82 FR 44981 - Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Norman, OK; and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Oklahoma City, OK | |
| 82 FR 44903 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 44974 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 44907 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 44945 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection | |
| 82 FR 44898 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 44986 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Third National Survey of WIC Participants (NSWP-III) | |
| 82 FR 44900 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 44895 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
National Capital Planning Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC or Commission) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Effective October 20, 2017.
Anne R. Schuyler, General Counsel and Chief FOIA Officer, 202-482-7223,
In FR Doc. 2017-19997 appearing on page 44036 in the
National Capital Planning Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC or Commission) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Effective October 20, 2017.
Anne R. Schuyler, General Counsel and Chief FOIA Officer, 202-482-7223,
In FR Doc. 2017-19996 appearing on page 44044 in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System (NUHOMS® System) listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to renew, for an additional 40-year period, Revision 1 of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and 13, and Amendment No. 14 of Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1004. These changes require, among other things, that all future amendments and revisions to this CoC include evaluations of the impacts to aging management activities (
This direct final rule is effective December 11, 2017, unless significant adverse comments are received by October 27, 2017. If this direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Christian Jacobs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 301-415-6825; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0138 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:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0138 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
This rule is limited to the changes associated with renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, Revision 1, and Amendment No. 14 to CoC No. 1004 and does not include other aspects of the NUHOMS® System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue these renewals because they represent a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. This direct final rule will become effective on December 11, 2017. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by October 27, 2017, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or technical specifications (TSs).
For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the
On November 4, 2014, AREVA submitted a renewal application for the Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System, CoC No. 1004, for a period of 40 years beyond the initial certificate term. AREVA supplemented its request on October 16, 2015; June 6, 2016; and September 29, 2016.
On November 18, 2016, TN Americas LLC provided notification that it had changed from AREVA TN Americas, a former operating division of AREVA Inc., to a stand-alone entity named TN Americas LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary company of AREVA Nuclear Materials LLC. Because the renewed CoCs will be issued to TN Americas LLC, this notice will specify “TN Americas” when referring to the CoC holder, and “AREVA” when referring to the applicant.
The renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 (Amendment No. 12 was never issued) were conducted in accordance with the renewal provisions in 10 CFR 72.240. This section of NRC spent fuel storage regulations authorizes the NRC staff to include any additional certificate conditions it deems necessary to ensure that the cask system's SSCs continue to perform their intended safety functions during the certificates' renewal period. The NRC staff has included additional conditions in the renewed certificates. These conditions do not revise the authorized contents of any existing or planned NUHOMS® System. The changes require, among other things, that all future amendments and revisions to this CoC include evaluations of the impacts to aging management activities (
As documented in its Safety Evaluation Report (SER), the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC renewal request. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC renewal. Considering the specific design requirements for each accident or sabotage condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident or sabotage. This renewal does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of the renewal of the initial certificate and these amendments would remain well within the NRC's 10 CFR part 20 limits on doses to workers and members of the public. There will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.
This direct final rule revises the NUHOMS® System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by renewing for an additional 40-year period the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 of CoC No. 1004. The renewal consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the renewed CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the SER.
The NRC has determined that the NUHOMS® System cask design, when used under the conditions specified in the renewed CoC, renewed TSs, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into NUHOMS® System casks that meet the criteria of the renewed initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 of CoC No. 1004 under 10 CFR 72.212.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the NUHOMS® System design listed in § 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).
The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the NUHOMS® System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to renew, for an additional 40-year period, the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 of CoC No. 1004. This action does not revise the authorized contents of existing or planned NUHOMS® Systems. Specifically, these changes require, among other things, that all future amendments and revisions to this CoC include evaluations of the impacts on aging management activities (
This direct final rule is necessary to authorize the continued use of the NUHOMS® System design by power reactor licensees for dry spent fuel storage at reactor sites. Specifically, this rule extends the expiration date for the NUHOMS® System certificates for an additional 40 years, allowing a reactor licensee to continue using them under general license provisions in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), the facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license stores spent fuel in dry casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72.
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment (EA) for the 1990 final rule. The EA for these renewals tiers off of the EA for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past EAs is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).
The NRC staff has determined that the environmental impacts of renewing the NUHOMS® System certificates for an additional 40 years remain bounded by the EA for the 1990 final rule. As required by 10 CFR 72.240, applications for renewal of a spent fuel storage CoC design are required to demonstrate, in time-limited aging analyses and a description of an AMP, that SSCs important to safety will continue to perform their intended function for the requested renewal term. As discussed in the NRC staff's SER for the renewal of the NUHOMS® System certificates, the NRC staff has approved conditions in the renewed CoCs requiring the general licensee to implement the AMPs described in the renewal application and incorporated into the storage system's UFSAR. These conditions ensure that NUHOMS® Systems will continue to perform their intended safety functions and provide adequate protection of public health and safety throughout the renewal period.
Incremental impacts from continued use of NUHOMS® Systems under a general license for an additional 40 years are not considered significant. When the general licensee follows all procedures and administrative controls, including the conditions established as a result of the renewals, no effluents are expected from the sealed dry storage cask systems. Activities associated with cask loading and decontamination may result in some small incremental liquid and gaseous effluents, but these activities will be conducted under 10 CFR parts 50 or 52 reactor operating licenses, and effluents will be controlled within existing reactor site technical specifications. Because reactor sites are relatively large, any incremental offsite doses due to direct radiation exposure from the spent fuel storage casks are expected to be small, and when combined with the contribution from reactor operations, well within the annual dose equivalent of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) limit to the whole body specified in 10 CFR 72.104. Incremental impacts on collective occupational exposures due to dry cask spent fuel storage are expected to be only a small fraction of the exposures from operation of the nuclear power station.
The NUHOMS® Systems are also designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an ISFSI include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.
During the promulgation of the amendments that added subpart K to 10 CFR part 72 (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990), the NRC staff assessed the public health consequences of dry cask system storage accidents and sabotage events. In the supporting analyses for these amendments, the NRC staff determined that a release from a dry cask storage system would be comparable in magnitude to a release from the same quantity of fuel in a spent fuel storage pool. As a result of these evaluations, the NRC staff determined that, because of the physical characteristics of the storage casks and conditions of storage that include specific security provisions, the potential risk to public health and safety due to accidents or sabotage is very small.
Considering the specific design requirements for each accident or sabotage condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant.
There are no changes to cask design or fabrication requirements in the renewed initial certificate or the renewed Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 that would result in an increase in occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of the renewal of the initial certificate and amendments. Therefore, the occupational exposure or offsite dose rates would remain well within applicable 10 CFR part 20 limits.
Decommissioning of dry cask spent fuel storage systems under a general license would be carried out as part of a power reactor's site decommissioning plan. In general, decommissioning would consist of removing the spent fuel from the site, decontaminating cask surfaces, and decontaminating and dismantling the ISFSI where the casks
In summary, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that differ significantly from the environmental impacts evaluated in the EA supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. Compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR parts 20 and 72 would ensure that adequate protection of public health and safety will continue. The NRC, in its SER for the renewal of the NUHOMS® System, has determined that if the conditions specified in the CoC to implement these regulations are met, adequate protection of public health and safety will be maintained.
Based on the previously stated assessments and its SER for the requested renewal of the NUHOMS® System certificates, the NRC has determined that the expiration date of this system in 10 CFR 72.214 can be safely extended for an additional 40 years, and that commercial nuclear power reactor licensees can continue using the system during this period under a general license without significant impacts on the human environment.
The alternative to this action is to deny approval of these renewals and end the direct final rule. Under this alternative, the NRC would either: (1) Require general licensees using NUHOMS® Systems to unload the spent fuel from these systems and either return it to a spent fuel pool or re-load it into a different NRC-approved dry storage cask system listed in 10 CFR 72.214; or (2) require that users of existing NUHOMS® Systems request site-specific licensing proceedings to continue storage in these systems.
The environmental impacts of requiring the licensee to unload the spent fuel and either return it to the spent fuel pool or re-load it into another NRC-approved dry storage cask system would result in increased radiological doses to workers. These increased doses would be due primarily to direct radiation from the casks while the workers unloaded, transferred, and re-loaded the spent fuel. These activities would consist of transferring the dry storage canisters to a cask handling building, opening the canister lid welds, returning the canister to a spent fuel pool or dry transfer facility, removing the fuel assemblies, and re-loading them, either into a spent fuel pool storage rack or another NRC-approved dry storage cask system. In addition to the increased occupational doses to workers, these activities may also result in additional liquid or gaseous effluents.
Alternatively, users of the dry cask storage system would need to apply for a site-specific license. Under this option for implementing the no-action alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, each separate license application, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.
In summary, the no-action alternative would entail either more environmental impacts from transferring the spent fuel now in NUHOMS® Systems, or impacts from multiple licensing actions that, in the aggregate, are likely to be less than spent fuel transfer activities but the same as, or more likely greater than, the preferred action.
Approval of the renewals of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 of CoC No. 1004 would result in no irreversible commitments of resources.
No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this EA.
The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements of NEPA, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” Based on the foregoing EA, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas LLC, Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, Renewal of Initial Certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, Revision 1, and 14,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment.
Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.
This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and TN Americas LLC. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On January 22, 1994 (59 FR 65898), the NRC issued a final rule that approved the NUHOMS® System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1004.
On November 4, 2014, AREVA submitted a renewal application for the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 for the Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System, CoC No. 1004, for a period of 40 years beyond the initial certificate term. AREVA supplemented its request on October 16, 2015, June 6, 2016, and September 29, 2016. These requests are described in Section IV of this document, “Discussion of Changes.” Because AREVA filed its renewal application at least 30 days before the certificate expiration date of January 23, 2015, pursuant to the timely renewal
The alternative to this action is to deny approval of the renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 of CoC No. 1004 and end this direct final rule. Under this alternative, the NRC would either: (1) Require general licensees using NUHOMS® Systems to unload spent fuel from these systems and return it to a spent fuel pool or re-load it into a different NRC-approved dry storage cask system listed in 10 CFR 72.214; or (2) require that users of existing NUHOMS® Systems request site-specific licensing proceedings to continue storage in these systems. Therefore, the no-action alternative would result in a significant burden on licensees and an additional inspection or licensing caseload on the NRC. In addition, the no action alternative would entail either more environmental impacts from transferring the spent fuel now in NUHOMS® Systems, or impacts from multiple licensing actions that, in the aggregate, are likely to be less than spent fuel transfer activities but the same as, or more likely greater than, the preferred action.
Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the SER and the EA, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.
The NRC has determined that the actions in this direct final rule do not require a backfit analysis because they either do not fall within the definition of backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62 or 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or they do not impact any general licensees currently using these systems. Additionally, the actions in this direct final rule do not impact issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses under 10 CFR part 52.
This direct final rule renews CoC No. 1004 for the NUHOMS® System, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks,” to extend the expiration date of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 by 40 years. The renewed certificates would require implementation of an AMP for the 40 years after the storage cask system's initial 20-year service period.
Renewing these certificates does not fall within the definition of backfit under 10 CFR 72.62 or 10 CFR 50.109, or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Extending the certificates' effective dates for 40 more years and requiring the implementation of AMPs does not impose any modification or addition to the design of an SSC of a cask system, or to the procedures or organization required to operate the system during the initial 20-year storage period of the system, as authorized by the current certificate.
General licensees that have loaded these casks, or that load these casks in the future under the specifications of the applicable certificate, may continue to store spent fuel in these systems for the initial 20-year storage period authorized by the original certificate. The AMPs required to be implemented by this renewal are only required to be implemented after the storage cask system's initial 20-year service period ends. As explained in the 2011 final rule that amended 10 CFR part 72 (76 FR 8872, Question I; February 16, 2011), the general licensee's authority to use a particular storage cask design under an approved CoC terminates 20 years after the date that the general licensee first loads the particular cask with spent fuel, unless the cask's CoC is renewed. Because this rulemaking renews the certificates, and renewal is a separate NRC licensing action voluntarily implemented by vendors, the renewal of these CoCs is not an imposition of new or changed requirements from which these licensees would otherwise be protected by the backfitting provisions in 10 CFR 72.62 or 10 CFR 50.109.
Even if renewal of this CoC system could be considered a backfit, TN Americas LLC, as the holder of the CoC and vendor of the casks, is not protected by the backfitting provisions in 10 CFR 72.62.
Unlike a vendor, general licensees using the existing systems subject to these renewals would be protected by the backfitting provisions in 10 CFR 72.62 and 10 CFR 50.109 if the renewals constituted new or changed requirements. But as previously explained, renewal of the certificates for these systems does not impose such requirements. The general licensees using these CoCs may continue storing material in their respective cask systems for the initial 20-year storage period identified in the applicable certificate or amendment with no changes. If general licensees choose to continue to store spent fuel in NUHOMS® Systems after the initial 20-year period, these general licensees will be required to implement AMPs for any cask systems subject to a renewed CoC, but such continued use is voluntary.
For these reasons, renewing the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 of CoC No. 1004 does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62 or 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, the NRC staff has not prepared a backfit analysis for this rulemaking.
This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking Web site at
Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Final rule.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is adopting, without change, its proposed revisions to small business size standards. With the adoption of the proposed changes, SBA incorporates the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) revision for 2017, identified as NAICS 2017, into its table of small business size standards. NAICS 2017 created 21 new industries by reclassifying, combining, or splitting 29 existing industries under changes made to NAICS in 2012 (NAICS 2012). SBA's size standards for these 21 new industries have resulted in an increase to size standards for six NAICS 2012 industries and part of one industry, a decrease to size standards for two, a change in the size standards measure from average annual receipts to number of employees for one, and no change in size standards for twenty industries and part of one industry.
This rule is effective October 1, 2017.
Dr. Jorge Laboy-Bruno, Office of Size Standards, (202) 205-6618 or
Effective October 1, 2000, SBA adopted NAICS 1997 industry definitions as a basis for its table of small business size standards, replacing the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) (65 FR 30836 (May 15, 2000)). Since then, OMB has issued four revisions to NAICS. SBA's table of size standards adopted the OMB's first revision, NAICS 2002, effective October 1, 2002 (67 FR 52597 (August 13, 2002)), the second revision, NAICS 2007, effective October 1, 2007 (72 FR 49639 (August 29, 2007)), and the third revision, NAICS 2012, effective October 1, 2012 (77 FR 49991 (August 20, 2012)).
OMB published its fourth and latest revision, NAICS 2017, “Notice of NAICS 2017 final decisions” in the
As with the previous NAICS revisions, SBA is adopting the NAICS 2017 revision at the beginning of the new fiscal year (October 1, 2017) following the OMB's release of the NAICS revision for reasons as set forth under the Justification for the October 1, 2017 Effective Date section, below:
NAICS 2017 created 21 new NAICS industries by reclassifying, splitting, or merging 29 industries or their parts under NAICS 2012. Of those 21 new industries, five were created by merging two or more of thirteen NAICS 2012 industries in their entirety, while three were created by combining part of one industry with another industry. Three new industries were created by splitting two industries to two parts each with one part of each industry defined as a separate industry and combining other parts of the two industries to form a separate new industry. One new industry was formed by designating part of one industry as a separate industry. OMB also changed 6-digit NAICS codes for eight industries without changing their definitions and titles and amended the title of one industry without changing its 6-digit code. Table 1, “NAICS 2012 Industries or Their Parts Matched to NAICS 2017 Industries,” below, shows the changes from NAICS 2012 to NAICS 2017.
Complete information on the relationship between NAICS 2012 and NAICS 2017 is available on the U.S. Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) Web site at
On October 22, 1999, SBA proposed to replace SIC with NAICS 1997 as the basis of industry definitions for its table of small business size standards (64 FR 57188). The proposed rule included a set of guidelines or rules that SBA applied to convert the size standards for industries under SIC to NAICS. The guidelines aimed to minimize the impact of applying a new industry classification system on SBA's size standards and on small businesses that qualified as small under the SIC based size standards. SBA received no negative comments against the proposed guidelines. SBA published its final rule on May 15, 2000 (65 FR 30386) (corrected on September 5, 2000, 65 FR 53533) adopting the resulting table of size standards based on NAICS 1997, as proposed. To be consistent, SBA used the same guidelines when it updated its
In addition to the above general guidelines, in cases where a new industry is formed by merging multiple industries or their parts with substantially different levels or different measures of size standards, as detailed in the April 18, 2017 proposed rule, SBA also examined the relevant latest industry and Federal procurement data to determine an appropriate size standard for the new industry. Developed based on the above guidelines and analyses of the relevant data, where necessary, SBA's size standards for the new industries under NAICS 2017 are shown in Table 3, “Size Standards for New Industries in NAICS 2017.” Also shown in the table are the current size standards for the affected NAICS 2012 industries and their parts.
As shown in Table 3, the size standards for most of the affected NAICS 2012 industries are not impacted and therefore remain unchanged under NAICS 2017. The majority of the changes consist of revisions to industry codes or titles, or mergers of two or more NAICS 2012 industries or their parts to new industries without impacting their size standards. Of the 29 NAICS 2012 industries affected by the revision, adopting NAICS 2017 increases size standards for six industries and part of one industry and decreases for two. This would also result in changing the size standard measure for one industry from average annual receipts to number of employees. Size standards for twenty industries and part of one industry do not change.
For the April 18, 2017 proposed rule, SBA provided a 60-day comment period for the public to comment on proposed changes to size standards from the adoption of the NAICS 2017, which ended on June 19, 2017. SBA received three comments to the proposed rule, two of which were outside the scope of the proposed rule as discussed below.
One commenter recommended that SBA change the size standard for the Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons exception to NAICS 541330 (Engineering Services) from average annual revenues to the number of employees.
Similarly, another commenter recommended that SBA consider changing the size standard for NAICS 488190 (Other Support Activities for Air Transportation) from revenues to employees. The commenters argued that the change would allow small businesses providing those services to continue to compete and succeed in a market dominated by large businesses which provide similar services as an ancillary function to their primary business. They provided an analysis of the Federal Procurement Data System—Next Generation (FPDS-NG) data to describe the competitive structure of their respective industries to support their recommendations.
Since NAICS 541330 and 488190 were not impacted by the NAICS 2017 revision, SBA did not review those industries nor did it propose any changes to their size standards in the April 2017 proposed rule. As part of the first five-year comprehensive review of size standards under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs Act) (Pub. L. 111-240, September 27, 2010), in 2012, SBA increased the size standard for the Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons exception to NAICS 541330 from $27 million to $35.5 million (77 FR 7489, (February 10 2012)) and increased the size standard for NAICS 488190 from $7 million to $30 million (77 FR 10943, (February 24, 2012)). In 2014, they were further increased to $38.5 million and $32.5 million, respectively, for inflation (79 FR 33647 (June 12, 2014)). SBA will review these size standards again in the coming years as part of the second five-year review of size standards, as required by the Jobs Act. Interested parties, including the commenters, will have an opportunity to comment when SBA publishes the proposed rule for their industries.
The third commenter recommended that SBA consider raising the small business size standard for the Home Health Equipment and Rental industry from $32.5 million to $35 million, an increase of 7.7 percent. The commenter argued the increase reflects the anticipated inflation and the cost of doing business over the next five years. The commenter also noted that a higher size standard for NAICS 532283 would allow some large firms to gain small business status and help some small firms retain their small business status into the future. Thus, as a result, that Federal agencies will have a larger pool of small businesses from which to draw for their small business procurement programs, the commenter concluded.
The NAICS 2017 revision changed the 6-digit code for the Home Health Equipment and Rental industry from 532291 to 532283 without changing the industry definition. Accordingly, for new NAICS 532283, SBA applied the same $32.5 million that currently applies to NAICS 532291. The adoption of NAICS 2017 led to changes in size standards only when the new industry was formed by merging the existing industries or industry parts with different size standards, not when only the 6-digit code changed.
Every five years, SBA reviews all monetary based size standards for inflation and makes necessary adjustments. SBA's latest inflationary adjustment to size standards was in 2014, which resulted in an increase to the size standard for NAICS 532291 from $30 million to $32.5 million. SBA anticipates issuing the next inflationary adjustment of all monetary based size standards sometime in 2019 and interested parties will have an opportunity to comment at that time. Additionally, as part of the second five-year review of size standards under the Jobs Act, SBA will also review all size standards in the coming years against the latest available industry and Federal market data and make appropriate adjustments. (In the first five-year review, SBA increased the size standard for NAICS 532291 from $7 million to $30 million (77 FR 58747 (September 24, 2012)). The commenter will have an opportunity to comment when SBA publishes the proposed rule for NAICS Sector 53, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing.
SBA considered each comment and determined that they were not germane to the purpose of the proposed rule, which was to adopt NAICS 2017 as a basis for its table of size standards. The intent and methodology of the proposed rule did not provide for changing the size standard for an industry whose NAICS code was not affected by the NAICS revision, nor did it provide for adjusting a size standard for inflation or the cost of doing business. Accordingly, SBA is not modifying its April 18, 2017 proposed rule based on the comments received and is adopting the proposed rule, as published.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that “publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except * * * as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the APA provision delaying the effective date of a rule for 30 days after publication is to provide interested and affected members of the public sufficient time to adjust their behavior before the rule takes effect. For the reasons set forth below, SBA finds that good cause exists to make this final rule become effective on October 1, 2017, less than 30 days after it is published in the
• In its August 8, 2016 notice, OMB stated that Federal statistical establishment data published for reference years beginning on or after January 1, 2017, should be published using NAICS 2017. October 1, 2017 is the start of the new Federal Government fiscal year following OMB's adoption of NAICS 2017 effective January 1, 2017, and is consistent with SBA's adoption of previous NAICS revisions effective at the start of the next fiscal year after the OMB's effective date. Federal contracting data and related statistics will be more consistent and comparable with past data for analyzing future small business activity if the revised size standards are adopted at the beginning of a new fiscal year. Similarly, users of size standards and Federal contracting data, such as Federal prime contractors developing their subcontracting plans, can have more consistent data to examine the past and future Federal contracting trends.
• Small business size standards apply to most Federal agencies and their programs involving small businesses; the time lag between the OMB's effective date and SBA's update to its size standards has already given them time to implement the changes and develop training tools, if necessary. For instance, in July 2017, SBA provided Integrated Award Environment with an advance copy of the updated size standards table to update the Federal contracting databases such as the System for Award Management.
• The rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 and the impacts from changes to size standards due to the adoption of the NAICS 2017 are minimal. This final rule impacts size standards for less than 10 industries involving about 60 firms, with a vast majority of them gaining small business status under the revised size standards. Those firms will benefit from an earlier effective date.
• The impacted firms have had an opportunity to review the changes and submit comments during the notice and comment period for this rule. None of the three comments SBA received on the April 18, 2017 proposed rule opposed the changes. The affected firms and other interested parties have had ample time to adjust their behavior, if necessary.
OMB has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule incorporates the OMB's 2017 revisions of NAICS, which SBA uses to identify industries in the United States for purposes of establishing small business size standards. As discussed in the Supplementary Information above, the size standard of some industries would change because of the NAICS 2017 revisions. However, SBA has determined that virtually all businesses currently defined as small under the NAICS 2012 based size standards will continue to be small under the NAICS 2017 based size standards. This rule will also affect other Federal Government programs that provide a benefit for small businesses. In order to help explain the need of this rule and the rule's potential benefits and costs, SBA is providing below a Cost Benefit Analysis. This final rule is also not a “major rule” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 800.
SBA believes that adopting small business size standards based on NAICS 2017 is in the best interests of small businesses. SBA's mission is to aid and assist small businesses through a variety of financial, procurement, business development, and advocacy programs. To assist the intended beneficiaries of these programs effectively, SBA establishes numerical definitions to determine which businesses are deemed eligible for Federal small business assistance. NAICS 2017 provides the latest industry definitions reflecting the latest changes in industry structure. The Small Business Act (the Act) provides SBA's Administrator with the responsibility for establishing definitions for small business. The Act also requires that small business definitions vary from industry to industry reflecting differences among the various industries. 15 U.S.C. 632(a). By analyzing and reviewing size standards based on the latest NAICS definitions, SBA can more accurately and appropriately fulfill its mandate. If SBA does not use the latest industry definitions, size standards would not accurately reflect differences among industries. In addition, the Jobs Act requires SBA to review all size standards and make necessary adjustments to reflect current industry and market conditions at least every five years. To better serve this mandate, SBA needs to evaluate industry data based on the latest NAICS industry definitions available. In this final rule, SBA generally followed the same guidelines that the Agency used for adopting prior NAICS revisions for its size standards, as spelled out under the Supplemental Information section, above. For certain NAICS 2017 industries involving NAICS 2012 industries with substantially different size standards, SBA also analyzed the relevant industry and program data to determine the size standards for them. Size standards based on NAICS 2017 industry definitions and corresponding data will serve SBA's mission more effectively.
The vast majority of the changes from NAICS 2012 to NAICS 2017 consist of revisions to industry titles or 6-digit codes or mergers of some NAICS 2012 industries or their parts to form the industries in NAICS 2017 without impacting their size standards. Of the 29 affected NAICS 2012 industries or their parts, SBA's size standards using NAICS 2017 will result in increases to size standards for six NAICS 2012 industries and part of one industry, decreases for two industries, and the change of size standard from average annual receipts to number of employees for one industry. The size standards will remain unchanged for other affected industries or parts.
Based on the 2012 Economic Census data for the affected NAICS 2012 industries, SBA estimates that approximately 60 additional businesses would gain small business status under the revised size standards. That represents about 0.1 percent of the number of small businesses in the affected industries. For the two industries for which the size standard will decrease, SBA also estimates that fewer than five firms that qualify as small under current size standards under NAICS 2012 will no longer qualify. However, almost all of those firms do not currently participate in any small business programs.
The benefits of adopting NAICS 2017 and the resulting revisions to size standards will accrue to three groups in the following ways: (1) Some businesses that are above their current size standards may gain small business status, thereby becoming eligible to participate in Federal small business assistance programs, including SBA's financial assistance programs, economic injury disaster loans, and Federal procurement opportunities intended for small businesses; (2) growing small businesses that are close to exceeding the current size standards for their NAICS 2012 industry may retain their small business status under NAICS 2017, and can continue participating in the above programs; and (3) Federal agencies will have a larger pool of small businesses from which to draw for their small business procurement programs because they will be able to define more accurately the principal purposes of their procurements under NAICS 2017, as required by 13 CFR 121.402(b).
Additional firms gaining small business status under NAICS 2017 may benefit under SBA's various business development and contracting programs. These include the 8(a) Business Development program and programs benefiting small businesses located in Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZones), Women Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs), and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs). Added competition may also result in lower prices for some Federal contracts reserved for small businesses, although SBA cannot quantify this benefit. Based on data for fiscal years 2013-2015, SBA estimates that approximately $700,000 in Federal contracts could be awarded to the newly defined small businesses under the size standards revisions due to the adoption of NAICS 2017.
Under SBA's 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs, SBA would be able to guarantee more loans, although, in this case too, the number and amount of additional loans cannot be estimated accurately. Based on the Agency 7(a) and 504 loan data for fiscal years 2014-2016, SBA estimates that about two additional loans, totaling approximately $200,000, could be made to the newly defined small businesses under the NAICS 2017 size standards. Under the Jobs Act, SBA can now guarantee substantially larger loans than in the past. Additionally, the Jobs Act established an alternative size standard for SBA's 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs for applicants that do not meet the size standards for their industries. Specifically, section 1116 of the Jobs Act provides that if a firm applying for a 7(a) or 504 loan does not meet the size standard for its industry, it might still qualify if it has a tangible net worth that does not exceed $15 million and an average net income after Federal income taxes (excluding any carry-over losses) for its preceding two completed fiscal years that does not exceed $5 million. Thus, the updated size standards may
Newly defined small businesses will also benefit from SBA's Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) Program. Since this program is contingent on the occurrence and severity of a disaster, SBA cannot make a meaningful estimate of future EIDL benefit.
To the extent that newly defined small firms under NAICS 2017 could become active in Federal procurement programs, this may entail some additional administrative costs to the Federal Government associated with additional bidders for Federal small business procurement opportunities. More firms may seek SBA's guaranteed loans. More will be enrolled in the SBA's Dynamic Small Business Search database. Since more firms will qualify as small, more may also seek certification as 8(a) or HUBZone firms, or qualify for WOSB, SDVOSB, and/or small disadvantaged business (SDB) status. It is important to point out that most business entities that are already registered in SAM will not be required to update their SAM profiles. However, it will be incumbent on registrants to review their profiles to ensure that they have the correct NAICS codes. SAM requires that registered companies review and update their profiles annually, and therefore, businesses will need to pay particular attention to the changes to determine if they might affect them. They will also have to verify and update, if necessary, their Representations and Certifications in SAM. Further, firms are required to verify that their size representation in SAM is accurate prior to submitting an offer for a contract. FAR 52.204-8(d).
Among the newly qualified businesses seeking SBA's assistance, there could be some additional costs associated with compliance and verification of small business status and protests of small business status. These added costs are likely to be minimal because mechanisms are already in place to handle these administrative requirements.
The costs to the Federal Government may be higher on some Federal contracts under the higher revised size standards under NAICS 2017. With more businesses defined as small, Federal agencies might choose to set aside more contracts for competition among small businesses rather than using full and open competition. The movement from unrestricted to set-aside contracting will likely result in competition among fewer total bidders, although there will be a larger pool of small businesses to submit offers. In addition, higher costs may result when additional full and open contracts are awarded to HUBZone businesses because of a price evaluation preference. The additional costs associated with fewer bidders, however, will likely be minor since, as a matter of law, procurements may be set aside for small businesses or reserved for the 8(a), HUBZone, WOSB, or SDVOSB Programs only if awards are expected to be made at fair and reasonable prices.
The revised size standards may have some distributional effects among large and small businesses. Although SBA cannot estimate with certainty the actual outcome of gains and losses among small and large businesses, there are several likely impacts. There may be a transfer of some Federal contracts from large businesses to small businesses. Large businesses may have fewer Federal contract opportunities as Federal agencies decide to set aside more Federal contracts for small businesses. In addition, some agencies may award more Federal contracts to HUBZone firms instead of large businesses since HUBZone concerns may be eligible for price evaluation adjustments when they compete on full and open procurement opportunities. Similarly, currently defined small businesses may receive fewer Federal contracts due to the increased competition from more businesses defined as small under NAICS 2017. This transfer may be offset by more Federal procurements set aside for all small businesses. The number of newly defined and expanding small businesses that are willing and able to sell to the Federal Government will limit the potential transfer of contracts away from large and small businesses under the existing size standards. SBA cannot estimate with precision the potential distributional impacts of these transfers.
SBA's adoption of NAICS 2017 and resulting revisions to size standards is consistent with SBA's statutory mandate to assist small business by providing access to capital and credit, Government contracts, and management and technical assistance. Updated size standards based on the latest industry definitions ensure that Federal small business assistance is more effectively targeted to its intended beneficiaries. The Small Business Act states that “the Administrator shall ensure that the size standard varies from industry to industry to the extent necessary to reflect the differing characteristics of the various industries.” 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(3). With the adoption of the latest industry definitions in NAICS 2017, SBA's size standards are more consistent with the differing characteristics among the various industries.
A description of the need for this regulatory action and benefits and costs associated with this action including possible distribution impacts that relate to Executive Order 13563 are included above in the Cost Benefit Analysis.
To engage interested parties in this action, SBA reached out to all Federal agencies advising them that the Agency plans to update its table of size standards to NAICS 2017, effective October 1, 2017, and that agencies must continue using the current size standards until that date. Adopting the updated size standards on October 1, 2017 is consistent with SBA's adoptions of previous NAICS revisions at the beginning of the new fiscal year following the OMB's January 1 effective date of NAICS revisions for Federal statistical agencies.
Unlike the previous NAICS revisions which SBA adopted for its size standards either through a direct final rule or through an interim final rule, for the adoption of NAICS 2017 revision, SBA issued a proposed rule, seeking comments to better engage the public in the process. SBA received no germane adverse comments to the proposed rule. SBA is adopting the updated table of size standards, effective October 1, 2017. SBA will also issue a press release on the publication of the final rule and update the “What's New with Size Standards” page on its Web site at
This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.
For purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this final rule 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. Therefore, SBA has determined that this final rule has
For the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35, SBA has determined that this final rule would not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), this final rule may have an impact on some small businesses in industries for which size standards have been revised. As described above, this rule may affect small businesses applying for Federal government contracts, loans under SBA's 7(a), 504, and Economic Injury Disaster Loan Programs, and assistance under other Federal small business programs.
Immediately below, SBA sets forth a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of this final rule addressing the following questions: (1) What are the need for and objectives of the rule?; (2) What are SBA's description and estimate of the number of small businesses to which the rule will apply?; (3) What are the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule?; (4) What are the relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule?; and (5) What alternatives will allow the Agency to accomplish its regulatory objectives while minimizing the impact on small businesses?
The Small Business Act requires that small business size standards vary from industry to industry reflecting the differing characteristics of the various industries. SBA uses the latest NAICS as a basis of industry definitions for its table of size standards. As part of its five-year review of and revisions to NAICS industry definitions, OMB published its latest NAICS revision, NAICS 2017, on August 8, 2016. According to OMB's notice, Federal establishment and industry data for reference years beginning on or after January 1, 2017 should be published using NAICS 2017. This rule amends SBA's small business size regulations to incorporate NAICS 2017 into its table of size standards. This not only makes SBA's size standards more reflective of the latest industry differences but also makes them more consistent with latest industry data the Agency uses to establish, review or adjust size standards. Updating size standards to the latest industry definitions also serves the SBA's mandate to review all size standards and make appropriate adjustments to reflect market conditions under the Jobs Act.
With the update of size standards to the latest industry definitions under NAICS 2017, Federal small business assistance is more effectively targeted to its intended beneficiaries. The adoption of NAICS 2017 will result in increases in size standards for six industries and part of one industry under NAICS 2012 and decreases for two. The size standards for the rest of the 29 affected industries will remain unchanged. In industries whose size standards have increased due to the adoption of NAICS 2017, about 60 firms above the current size standards will qualify as small under the updated size standards, thereby making them eligible for Federal small business assistance programs. Based on the recent data, SBA estimates that approximately $700,000 in Federal contracts and about $200,000 in SBA loans could be awarded to the newly defined small businesses under the updated size standards. The updated size standards will enable more small businesses to maintain their small business size status for a longer period. In the two NAICS 2012 industries for which the size standard will decrease, about 3-4 firms below the current size standards will lose their small business size status under the NAICS 2017 based size standards. However, the program data suggests that this will not cause much impact on them. Currently, they are not participating in any small business programs. Additionally, in both industries, Federal contracting and SBA's loan activities are quite insignificant.
The size standard changes due to the adoption of NAICS 2017 impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on small businesses. However, qualifying for Federal small business contracting and other programs may require businesses to register in SAM and recertify in SAM that they are small at least once annually. Therefore, the newly qualified small businesses opting to participate in those programs must comply with SAM requirements. There are no costs associated with either SAM registration or annual recertification. Changing size standards alters the access to SBA's financial and other Federal programs that assist small businesses, but does not impose a regulatory burden because size standards neither regulate nor control business behavior.
Under section 3(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(c), Federal agencies must generally use SBA's size standards to define a small business, unless specifically authorized by statute to do otherwise. In 1995, SBA published in the
By law, SBA is required to develop numerical size standards for establishing eligibility for Federal small business assistance programs. Other than varying levels of size standards by industry and changing the size measures, no practical alternative exists to the systems of numerical size standards. SBA considered continuing to use NAICS 2012 as a basis of industry definitions for its table of size standards. However, that would render SBA's table of size standards incompatible with Federal industry and establishment statistics and other databases.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Government property, Grant programs— business, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR part 121 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 662, and 694a(9).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and Model C-295 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of leakage of motorized cross-feed fuel valves. This AD requires repetitive inspections and operational checks of the affected fuel valves, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 1, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 1, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and Model C-295 airplanes. The SNPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0004, dated January 9, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and Model C-295 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Leakage of a motorised cross-feed fuel valve Part Number (P/N) 7923227F was reported on a CN-235-100M aeroplane. The leakage was observed through the valve electrical connectors and detected during accomplishment of a functional check in accordance with task 28.007 of the CN-235 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRB CN-235-PV01). Identical motorised fuel valves are installed on civilian CN-235 and C-295 aeroplanes, as cross-feed, shut-off and defueling valves.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of a motorised fuel valve and consequent improper functioning of the fuel system or, in case of an ignition source, could lead to a fire, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
To address this potentially unsafe condition, Airbus Defence & Space (D&S) issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT)-CN235-28-0001 and AOT-C295-28-0001 to provide inspection instructions.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0071 to require a one-time inspection of the affected motorised fuel valves and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, new occurrences of fuel leakage involving the
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0071, which is superseded, and introduces repetitive inspections and operational checks [and corrective actions, if necessary] of the affected fuel valves.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM.
Airbus Defense and Space has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2016; and AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2016. This service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections, replacement of the motorized fuel valves, and operational checks and corrective actions on affected motorized fuel valves. These 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
We estimate that this AD affects 14 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that will be required based on the results of the required inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition corrective actions for the operational check specified in this AD.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
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 November 1, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and Model C-295 airplanes; certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by leakage of a motorized cross-feed fuel valve, which was detected during accomplishment of a functional check. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct leaks in a motorized fuel valve, which could lead to failure of the fuel valve and consequent improper fuel system functioning or, in case of the presence of an ignition source, an airplane fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within the applicable compliance time defined in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Do an initial general visual inspection of each motorized fuel valve having part number (P/N) 7923227F for the presence of fuel on the electrical connectors and inside the receptacles, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1; or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 flight hours.
(1) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD, have accumulated 6,000 flight cycles or more since first flight of the airplane: Do the inspection within 30 flight cycles or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(2) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD, have accumulated less than 6,000 flight cycles since first flight of the airplane: Do the inspection within 300 flight hours or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any leaking of a motorized fuel valve having P/N 7923227F is detected: Before the next flight, replace the affected fuel valve with a serviceable part, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1; or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable. A serviceable part is defined as a part that is not defective; it could be a used or new part. Replacement of a motorized fuel valve on an airplane does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, accomplish an operational check of each motorized fuel valve P/N 7923227F, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1; or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable.
If, during any operational check, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, any discrepancy is detected, as described in Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1; or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable: Before further flight, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) to obtain instructions for corrective actions, and within the compliance time indicated in those instructions accomplish the corrective actions accordingly.
As of the effective date of this AD, replacement of a motorized fuel valve having P/N 7923227F with a serviceable part on an airplane is allowed, provided that, within 30 flight cycles or 30 days, whichever occurs first after installation, the part passes an inspection done in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1; or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001; or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, both dated February 19, 2016, as applicable.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, report all inspection results to Airbus Defense and Space Technical Assistance Center (AMTAC); telephone +34 91 600 79 99; email
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0004, dated January 9, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (p)(3) and (p)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission, AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2016.
(ii) Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2016.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. This AD was prompted by the discovery of cracking on two test spoiler power control unit (PCU) manifolds during testing by the manufacturer. This AD requires replacement of affected spoiler PCUs. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 1, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 1, 2017.
For Bombardier, Inc., service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
For Parker-Hannifin Corporation service information identified in this final rule, contact Parker Aerospace, 14300 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618; telephone 949-833-3000; fax 949-809-8646; 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
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.
We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. The SNPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-07R2,
During endurance and impulse testing of the spoiler PCU, cracks were discovered on two test spoiler PCU manifolds. Investigation determined that the crack initiation was due to the heat treat process. A cracked spoiler PCU manifold could cause the loss of one of the two hydraulic systems, resulting in the loss of multiple flight controls and landing gear systems. This condition, if not corrected, could adversely affect the continued safe operation and landing of the aeroplane.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the affected spoiler PCUs.
Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD was issued to extend the applicability to include additional aeroplane serial numbers and also modify the Corrective Actions to specifically mandate section 3.B of the [Bombardier Service Bulletin] SB 84-27-64, Revision A.
Revision 2 of this [Canadian] AD was issued to correct the SB referenced in the Background section. SB 84-27-64, Revision A should have been referenced in lieu of SB 84-27-63, Revision A.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM.
Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 84-27-64, Revision A, dated July 26, 2016. This service information describes procedures for replacement of affected spoiler PCU manifolds.
Parker-Hannifin Corporation has issued Service Bulletin 390700-27-002, Revision 1, dated April 13, 2016. This service bulletin identifies affected spoiler PCUs.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective November 1, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 4001, and 4003 through 4527 inclusive, equipped with spoiler power control unit (PCU) part numbers (P/Ns) 390700-1007 and -1009 and that have any spoiler PCU serial number identified in paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) S/Ns 0474 through 1321 inclusive;
(2) S/Ns identified in section “4. Appendix” of Parker Service Bulletin 390700-27-002, Revision 1, dated April 13, 2016; and
(3) S/Ns 1394 through 1876 inclusive, without suffix “A.”
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by the discovery of cracking on two test spoiler PCU manifolds during testing by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the spoiler PCUs that could lead to the loss of multiple flight controls and landing gear systems.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 12,000 flight hours or 72 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Remove and replace the affected spoiler PCUs in accordance with paragraph 3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-64, Revision A, dated July 26, 2016.
After the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD have been done, no person may install on any airplane, a spoiler PCU, part number 390700-1007 and -1009, with:
(1) S/Ns 0474 through 1321 inclusive; or
(2) S/Ns identified in section “4. Appendix” of Parker Service Bulletin 390700-27-002, Revision 1, dated April 13, 2016; or
(3) S/Ns 1394 through 1876 inclusive, without suffix “A.”
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-64, dated July 15, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-07R2, dated December 14, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(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.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-64, Revision A, dated July 26, 2016.
(ii) Parker Service Bulletin 390700-27-002, Revision 1, dated April 13, 2016.
(3) For Bombardier, Inc., service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
(4) For Parker-Hannifin Corporation service information identified in this AD, contact Parker Aerospace, 14300 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA, 92618; telephone 949-833-3000; fax 949-809-8646; Internet
(5) 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.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-26-10, which applied to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2014-26-10 required revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This new AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements. This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 1, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 1, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of February 25, 2015 (80 FR 2813, January 21, 2015).
For 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;
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.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-26-10, Amendment 39-18061 (80 FR 2813, January 21, 2015) (“AD 2014-26-10”). AD 2014-26-10 applied to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0093, dated May 13, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A320 family aeroplanes are currently defined and published in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The airworthiness limitations applicable to the System Equipment Maintenance Requirements, which are approved by [European Aviation Safety Agency] EASA, are specified in ALS Part 4.
The instructions contained in the ALS Part 4 have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness. Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
Previously, EASA issued AD 2013-0146 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-26-10] to require accomplishment of all maintenance actions as described in ALS Part 4 at Revision 01. The new ALS Part 4 Revision 03 (hereafter referred to as `the ALS' in this AD) includes new and/or more restrictive requirements. ALS Part 4 Revision 03, issue 02, has been released to include editorial changes.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0146, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the ALS.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Camp Systems International, Daniel Systems Inc., and United Airlines supported the NPRM.
American Airlines (AAL) asked that a provision be incorporated into the proposed AD to approve use of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR)”, Revision 05, dated April 6, 2017 (“ALS Part 4, Revision 05”), as an additional means of compliance with the maintenance or inspection program. AAL stated that ALS Part 4, Revision 05 is the latest revision level for ALS Part 4, and approving it would potentially alleviate a future alternative method of compliance (AMOC) request.
We acknowledge the commenter's concern. We have issued global AMOCs to AD 2014-26-10, which allow all operators of U.S.-registered airplanes to use Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR)”, Revision 04, dated July 6, 2016, and Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR)”, Revision 05, dated April 6, 2017. These AMOCs are included in paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of this AD, which states that AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-26-10 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD. In addition, these AMOCs are also applicable to the revision required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Therefore, we have added paragraph (k)(1)(iii) to this AD to specify the previous AMOCs that are approved for the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Airbus has issued Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03 at Issue 02, dated January 22, 2016. This service information describes preventive maintenance requirements and includes updated inspections and intervals to be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 1,032 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2014-26-10, and retained in this AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2014-26-10 is $85 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $87,720, or $85 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this 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 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 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 November 1, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2014-26-10, Amendment 39-18061 (80 FR 2813, January 21, 2015) (“AD 2014-26-10”).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD; certificated in any category; with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before December 21, 2015.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to mitigate the risks associated with aging effects of airplane systems. Such aging effects could change the characteristics of the systems leading to an increased potential for failure, which could result in failure of certain life-limited parts, and reduced structural integrity or reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-26-10, with new reference to terminating action. Within 30 days after February 25, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2014-26-10): Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS Part 4, “Aging Systems Maintenance,” Revision 01, dated June 15, 2012. The initial compliance time for doing the actions is at the applicable time specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS Part 4, “Aging Systems Maintenance,” Revision 01, dated June 15, 2012; or within 2 weeks after revising the maintenance or inspection program; whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-26-10, with a new paragraph reference. Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, after accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03 at Issue 02, dated January 22, 2016. The initial compliance time for doing the actions is at the applicable time specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03 at Issue 02, dated January 22, 2016; or within 2 weeks after revising the maintenance or inspection program; whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
After the action required by paragraph (i) of this AD has been done, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-26-10 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(iii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-26-10, which are included in the AMOC letters specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(iii)(A) and (k)(1)(iii)(B), are approved as AMOCs for the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD.
(A) AMOC letter ANM-116-17-002R1, dated November 14, 2016.
(B) AMOC letter ANM-116-17-323, dated June 12, 2017.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0093, dated May 13, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact 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. Information may be emailed to:
(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 November 1, 2017.
(i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03 at Issue 02, dated January 22, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on February 25, 2015 (80 FR 2813, January 21, 2015).
(i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section, ALS Part 4, “Aging Systems Maintenance,” Revision 01, dated June 15, 2012. The revision level of this document is identified on only the title page and in the Record of Revisions. The revision date is not identified on the title page of this document.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For 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:
(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-15-10, which applied to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2015-15-10 required repetitive inspections of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA) for damage, and replacement if necessary; and replacement of the THSA after reaching a certain life limit. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections of certain THSAs, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by the establishment of an additional life limit for the THSA, based on flight cycles. In addition, the THSA manufacturer has issued service information which, when accomplished, increases the life limit of the THSA. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 1, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 1, 2017.
For 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
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.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-15-10, Amendment 39-18219 (80 FR 43928, July 24, 2015) (“AD 2015-15-10”). AD 2015-15-10 applied to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0184, dated September 13, 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 MCAI states:
In the frame of the A320 Extended Service Goal (ESG) project and the study on the Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator (THSA), a sampling programme of in-service units was performed and several cases of wear at different THSA levels were reported.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, would reduce the remaining life of the THSA, possibly resulting in premature failure and consequent reduced control of the aeroplane.
Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-27-1227 to provide THSA inspection instructions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0011 (later revised) [which corresponds to AD 2015-15-10] to require repetitive inspections of the THSA [and related investigative and corrective actions] and to introduce a life limit for the THSA, based on flight hours (FH).
Since EASA AD 2014-0011R1 was issued, an additional life limitation has been established, based on flight cycles (FC). Furthermore, United Technologies Corporation Aerospace Systems (UTAS), the THSA manufacturer, issued an SB which, after accomplishment on THSA, increases the life limit of the THSA.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0011R1, which is superseded, and introduces an additional FC life limit for the affected THSA. This [EASA] AD also provides a revised life limit for the THSA after UTAS SB accomplishment on that THSA.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and United Airlines expressed their support for the NPRM.
The NPRM specified that a THSA that had been repaired in-shop as specified in UTAS Component Maintenance Manual 27-44-51 would be an equivalent method of compliance for the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD. We have revised paragraph (m) of this AD to specify that a THSA that has been repaired in-shop using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA), is acceptable for compliance with the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD. We have also added Note 1 to paragraph (m) of this AD to reference UTAS Component Maintenance Manual 27-44-51 as an additional source of guidance for the in-shop repair of the THSA.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016. This service information describes procedures for repetitive special detailed inspections for wear of the THSA, and related investigative and corrective actions.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 1,182 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the spectrometric analysis of the oil drained from the THSA gearbox. We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements or overhauls that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements or overhauls:
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 November 1, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2015-15-10, Amendment 39-18219 (80 FR 43928, July 24, 2015) (“AD 2015-15-10”).
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (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 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of wear at different levels in the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct wear of the THSA, which could reduce the remaining life of the THSA, possibly resulting in premature failure and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purposes of this AD, a serviceable THSA is a THSA that does not exceed the life limits as identified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD.
For any airplane on which UTAS Service Bulletin 47145-27-19 has not been embodied: Before the THSA exceeds 48,000 flight hours or 30,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since first installation on an airplane, do a special detailed inspection of the THSA and do all applicable related investigative actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016. Do all applicable related investigative actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any finding as described in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016, is identified: At the applicable time (depending on the applicable finding) specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016, replace the THSA with a serviceable THSA, as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016.
Within the applicable compliance time specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD, replace each THSA with a serviceable THSA, as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016.
Replacement of a THSA on an airplane, as required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane, unless the THSA has been overhauled as specified in UTAS Service Bulletin 47145-27-19 (
Accomplishment of a modification of an airplane by installing a THSA that has been overhauled as specified in UTAS Service Bulletin 47145-27-19 constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD, provided that, following modification, no THSA is reinstalled on the airplane unless it has been overhauled as specified in UTAS Service Bulletin 47145-27-19.
As of the effective date of this AD: A THSA that has been repaired in-shop is acceptable for compliance with the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, provided that repair was done 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).
Note 1 to paragraph (m) of this AD: Guidance for THSA repair in-shop can be found in UTAS Component Maintenance Manual 27-44-51.
As of the effective date of this AD: Do not install on any airplane a THSA unless it is a serviceable THSA as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using any of the service information specified in paragraphs (o)(1), (o)(2), or (o)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, dated July 1, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 01, dated October 7, 2013, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2015-15-10.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 02, dated February 2, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0184, dated September 13, 3016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket 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 (r)(3) and (r)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1227, Revision 03, dated April 29, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-13-05, which applied to all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. AD 2017-13-05 required an inspection, corrective actions if necessary, lubrication of the ball-nut, modification of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA), and additional work for previously modified airplanes. For certain airplanes, AD 2017-13-05 required installation of an electronic harness, terminating actions, and a ball-screw assembly inspection. This AD clarifies the formatting of a figure in the published version of AD 2017-13-05. This AD was prompted by reports indicating that affected parties misinterpreted the intent of a figure as formatted in the published version of AD 2017-13-05, which could result in a negative effect on compliance. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 12, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 28, 2017 (82 FR 34251, July 24, 2017).
We must receive comments on this AD by November 13, 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:
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
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.
On June 15, 2017, we issued AD 2017-13-05, Amendment 39-18935 (82 FR 34251, July 24, 2017) (“AD 2017-13-05”), which applied to all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. AD 2017-13-05 was prompted by the need for a modification that automatically detects failure of the ball-screw assembly. AD 2017-13-05 required an inspection, corrective actions if necessary, lubrication of the ball-nut, modification of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA), and additional work for previously modified airplanes. For certain airplanes, AD 2017-13-05 required installation of an electronic harness, terminating actions, and a ball-screw assembly inspection. We issued AD 2017-13-05 to detect and correct wear on the THSA, possibly resulting in damage to the ball-screw and fail-safe nut, which could jam the THSA and result in reduced control of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2017-13-05, we have received reports indicating that affected parties could misinterpret the identity of applicable service information to use for the modification, due to the formatting of figure 2 to paragraphs (h) and (i) in the published version of AD 2017-13-05. Since the published figure could result in a negative effect on compliance, 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 2014-0219, dated September 29, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330 and Model A340 series airplanes. (Model A330-223F and A330-243F airplanes were removed from AD 2017-13-05 to correspond with the MCAI.) The EASA AD is referenced in AD 2017-13-05. EASA has not revised its AD since the issuance of AD 2017-13-05.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued the following service information. The service bulletins having the same document number (but different revision levels) are distinct because each revision contains unique editorial changes.
The following service information describes procedures for doing repetitive inspections for integrity of the primary and secondary load paths of the ball-screw assembly of the THSA. These service bulletins are distinct because they apply to different airplane models.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3102, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4107, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016.
The following service information describes procedures for installing two electrical detection devices, also called CSPs, on the lower attachment secondary load path of the THSA, and modifying the THSA. These service bulletins are distinct because they apply to different airplane models equipped with THSAs having different part numbers.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3137, including Appendix 01, dated March 20, 2007.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3137, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated December 6, 2007.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3137, Revision 02, dated January 18, 2010.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3143, Revision 01, dated July 10, 2012.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4136, including Appendix 01, dated March 20, 2007.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4136, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated December 6, 2007.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4136, Revision 02, including Appendix 1, dated February 24, 2010.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4143, dated February 21, 2012.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-5030, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated November 20, 2009.
The following service information describes procedures for installing electrical wiring harnesses and brackets to connect the secondary nut detection device to the monitoring systems. These service bulletins are distinct because they apply to different airplane models.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 04, dated July 16, 2010.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 05, dated November 7, 2011.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 07, dated January 13, 2017.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-4056, Revision 03, dated July 16, 2010.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-4056, Revision 04, dated December 5, 2013.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-5008, Revision 07, dated February 8, 2013.
The following service information describes system equipment maintenance requirements (SEMR) that refer to preventative maintenance requirements found necessary to comply with safety objectives. These documents are distinct because they apply to different airplane models.
• Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015.
• Airbus A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 04, dated October 19, 2015.
• Airbus A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015, describes CMRs that are system-related periodic tasks established during type certification.
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 these same type designs.
We are superseding AD 2017-13-05 to clarify the formatting of a figure in the regulatory text of the published AD. No other changes have been made to AD 2017-13-05. 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 data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 33 airplanes of U.S. registry. This AD adds no new economic burden to AD 2017-13-05.
We estimate that it takes about 68 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $17,481 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $764,808, or $23,260 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 12, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2017-13-05, Amendment 39-18935 (82 FR 34251, July 24, 2017) (“AD 2017-13-05”).
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by the need for a modification that automatically detects failure of the ball-screw assembly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct wear on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA), possibly resulting in damage to the ball-screw and fail-safe nut, which could jam the THSA and result in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2017-13-05, with revised FAA contact information. For airplanes other than those identified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (q) of this AD: If, during any flight, one of the “PRIM X PITCH FAULT” or “STAB CTL FAULT” messages is displayed on the ECAM associated with the “PITCH TRIM ACTR (1CS)” maintenance message, before further flight after each time the message is displayed on the ECAM, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Do the applicable detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path; check the checkable shear pins (CSP), if installed; and do all applicable corrective actions; as specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(i) For Model A330 series airplanes: Do the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3102, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016, except as required by paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.
(ii) For Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes: Do the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4107, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016, except as required by paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.
(iii) For Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes: Do the actions 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).
Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this AD: Guidance for the inspection of the ball-screw assembly can be found in Task 274000-B0002-1-C, Inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load paths, of the Airbus A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015.
(2) Lubricate the THSA ball-nut in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), or (g)(2)(iii) of this AD.
(i) Task 274400-00002-1-E, Lubrication of the THSA ball-nut, of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015 (for Model A330 series airplanes).
(ii) Task 274400-00002-1-E, Lubrication of the THSA ball-nut, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 04, dated October 19, 2015 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes).
(iii) Task 274000-B0003-1-C, Lubrication of THS Actuator ball-screw nut, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015 (for Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes. For all airplanes, except Group 2 airplanes specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (q) of this AD, and except for airplanes identified in paragraphs (i), (j), and (n)(2) of this AD: Within 12 months after August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), modify the airplane by installing a CSP on the THSA and an additional electrical harness, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the Airbus service information specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, as applicable to the part number of the THSA installed on the airplane, except as provided by paragraph (n)(2) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes. For airplanes that have already been modified (installation of CSP on the THSA and electrical harness) before August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of any previous revision of an Airbus service bulletin specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, as applicable: Within 12 months after August 28, 2017, do the “Additional Work” specified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes. For airplanes having one of the THSAs installed with a part number listed in figure 3 to paragraph (j) of this AD, and that have been modified by installing a CSP on the THSA as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 12 months after August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), inspect to determine if the electrical harness identified in the applicable Airbus service information specified in figure 3 to paragraph (j) of this AD is installed on the airplane, and, if not installed, modify the airplane by installing an electrical harness, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the Airbus service information specified in figure 3 to paragraph (j) of this AD, as applicable to the part number of the THSA installed on the airplane. Airplanes having one of the THSAs installed with a part number listed in figure 3 to paragraph (j) of this AD already have the CSP installed on the THSA, and only the electrical harness must be installed on the airplane.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (k) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes. Accomplishment of a modification before August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), using the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3137, including Appendix 01, dated March 20, 2007; or Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated December 6, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 04, dated July 16, 2010; or Revision 05, dated November 7, 2011; or Revision 06, dated November 15, 2013; terminates the repetitive inspections specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD. Modification of an airplane as specified by this paragraph does not constitute terminating action for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD or the additional work specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) Task 274400-00001-1-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and check the gap at the secondary nut trunnion, of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015.
(2) Task 274400-00001-2-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and check the CSPs, of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015.
(3) Task 274400-00001-3-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and check the CSPs, of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015.
(4) Task 274400-00001-4-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and check the CSPs, of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (l) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes. Accomplishment of a modification in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4143, dated February 21, 2012; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-4056, Revision 03, dated July 16, 2010; terminates the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for modified Airbus Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes only. Modification of an airplane as specified in this paragraph does not constitute terminating action for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, or the additional work specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (m) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes. Accomplishment of a modification before August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), using the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4136, including Appendix 01, dated March 20, 2007; or Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated December 6, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-4056, Revision 03, dated July 16, 2010; terminates the repetitive inspections specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this AD. Modification of an airplane as specified in this paragraph does not constitute terminating action for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, or the additional work specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) Task 274400-00001-1-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and gap check at the secondary nut trunnion, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 04, dated October 19, 2015.
(2) Task 274400-00001-2-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and CSP check, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 04, dated October 19, 2015.
(3) Task 274400-00001-3-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and CSP check, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 04, dated October 19, 2015.
(4) Task 274400-00001-4-E, Detailed inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load path and CSP check, of A340 ALS Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 04, dated October 19, 2015.
This paragraph restates the exceptions of paragraph (n) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes.
(1) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3102, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016 (for Model A330 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4107, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016 (for Model A340 series airplanes); specifies to contact Airbus for a damage assessment: Before further flight, accomplish the required actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s)(2) of this AD.
(2) For airplanes that already had the electrical harness installed during production using Airbus Modifications 52269 and 56056 for Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes and Airbus Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes, and using Airbus Modifications 52191 and 56058 for Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes: Only the CSP must be installed on the THSA in
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (o) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes. Modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, as applicable, constitutes terminating action for that airplane for the applicable actions identified in paragraphs (o)(1) through (o)(4) of this AD.
(1) For all airplanes: The actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) For Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes: Task 274000-B0002-1-C, Inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load paths, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015.
(3) For Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes: The ALS tasks identified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD.
(4) For Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes: The ALS tasks identified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (p) of AD 2017-13-05, with revised FAA contact information. For Model A340-500 and -600 airplanes that are in post-Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-5008, at Revision 06 or earlier, configuration: Before exceeding the threshold or interval, as applicable, of Task 274000-B0002-1-C, Inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load paths, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015, or within 3 months after August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), whichever occurs later, accomplish Task 274000-B0002-1-C, Inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load paths, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015; and do all applicable corrective actions. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. Repeat Task 274000-B0002-1-C, Inspection of the ball-screw assembly for integrity of the primary and secondary load paths, thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in Airbus A340 ALS Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (1) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes.
(1) For all airplanes except Group 2 airplanes as identified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (q) of this AD: After modification of the airplane as required by paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, as applicable, no person may install any THSA having part number (P/N) 47172-300, P/N 47147-500, P/N 47175-200, or P/N 47175-300.
(2) For Group 2 airplanes, as identified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (q) of this AD: As of August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), no person may install on any Group 2 airplane any THSA having P/N 47172-300, P/N 47147-500, P/N 47175-200, or P/N 47175-300.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (r) of AD 2017-13-05, with no changes.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (r)(1)(i) through (r)(1)(iv) of this AD.
(i) Task 274400-00002-1-E, Lubrication of the THSA ball-nut, of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 03, dated September 9, 2011 (for Model A330 series airplanes).
(ii) Task 274400-00002-1-E, Lubrication of the THSA ball-nut, of Airbus A330 ALS Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 04, dated August 27, 2013 (for Model A330 series airplanes).
(iii) Task 274400-00002-1-E, Lubrication of the THSA ball-nut, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 02, dated October 12, 2011 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes).
(iv) Task 274400-00002-1-E, Lubrication of the THSA ball-nut, of Airbus A340 ALS Part 4—Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 03, dated November 15, 2012 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes).
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the electrical harness installation required by paragraph (h) of this AD and the inspection and electrical harness installation required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before August 28, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-05), using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 06, dated November 15, 2013.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0219, dated September 29, 2014, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (u)(4) and (u)(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 28, 2017 (82 FR 34251, July 24, 2017).
(i) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 05, dated October 19, 2015.
(ii) Airbus A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated October 19, 2015.
(iii) Airbus A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4—System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR), Revision 04, dated October 19, 2015.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3102, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016.
(v) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3137, including Appendix 01, dated March 20, 2007.
(vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3137, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated December 6, 2007.
(vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3137, Revision 02, dated January 18, 2010.
(viii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3143, Revision 01, dated July 10, 2012.
(ix) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 04, dated July 16, 2010.
(x) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 05, dated November 7, 2011.
(xi) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-92-3046, Revision 07, dated January 13, 2017.
(xii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4107, Revision 09, dated March 29, 2016.
(xiii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4136, including Appendix 01, dated March 20, 2007.
(xiv) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4136, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated December 6, 2007.
(xv) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4136, Revision 02, including Appendix 1, dated February 24, 2010.
(xvi) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4143, dated February 21, 2012.
(xvii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-5030, Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated November 20, 2009.
(xviii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-4056, Revision 03, dated July 16, 2010.
(xix) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-4056, Revision 04, dated December 5, 2013.
(xx) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-92-5008, Revision 07, dated February 8, 2013.
(4) For 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) 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.
(6) 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 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Leesville City Airport, Leesville, LA, and Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, Patterson, LA. Airspace redesign is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Leesville non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and the Patterson radio beacon (RBN), and cancellation of NDB and RBN approaches, and for the safe management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports. Additionally, this action amends the geographic coordinates at Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
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, 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 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Leesville City Airport, Leesville, LA and Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, Patterson, LA, to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
On April 10, 2017, the FAA published in the
Leesville Airport, Leesville, LA, and Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, Patterson, LA, due to the decommissioning of the Leesville NBD and Patterson RBN.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
Subsequent to publication, the FAA realized that it had inadvertently failed to include updates to the geographic coordinates for Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database in the NPRM. Those geographic coordinates are updated in this final rule.
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 above the surface at:
Leesville Airport, Leesville, LA, to within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 6.5-mile radius) of Leesville Airport, and within 3.7 miles each side of the 360° bearing from the airport (modified from 3.6 miles from each side of the 345° bearing) extending from the 6.4-
Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, Patterson, LA, by removing the segment within 2.5 mile each side of the 233° bearing from the Patterson RBN extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7.5 miles southwest of the airport. Additionally, the geographic coordinates for Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport, are adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Leesville NBD and Patterson RBN, and cancellation of the navigation aid approaches 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 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 5-6.5.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 6.4-mile radius of Leesville Airport, and within 3.7 miles each side of the 360° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 12.3 miles north of the airport, excluding that airspace within the Fort Polk, LA, Class D airspace area, and excluding that airspace within restricted area R-3803A.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Harry P. Williams Memorial Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Midland International Air and Space Port Airport (formerly Midland International Airport), Midland, TX, due to the closing of Mabee Ranch Airport, decommissioning of the Mabee non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of NDB approaches at Mabee Ranch Airport. Additionally, this action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field, Odessa, TX and Midland Airpark, Midland, TX, to accommodate special instrument approach procedures developed at these airports to enhance the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. Also, an editorial change is made to the Class E surface area airspace legal description replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement. In addition, the airport name is changed to Midland International Air and Space Port Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
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, 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 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Midland International Air Space Port Airport by removing Mabee Ranch Airport, Midland, TX, due to closing of the airport; and establishes Class E airspace at Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field, Odessa, TX, and Midland Airpark, Midland, TX, to support special instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.
On May 26, 2017, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 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 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 above the surface to within a 7.1-mile radius (from a 17.4-mile radius) of Midland International Air and Space Port Airport, Midland, TX, and also amends the airport name from Midland International Airport to Midland International Air and Space Port Airport in this and other associated Class E airspace areas. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the closing of Mabee Ranch Airport, and decommissioning and cancellation of the Mabee NDB and NDB approaches.
This action also established Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of both Midland Airpark, Midland, TX and Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field, Odessa, TX, to accommodate special instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.
Additionally, this action makes an editorial change in the legal description by replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the Class E surface area airspace.
Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 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 E airspace designation 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 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 5-6.5.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.
Within a 5-mile radius of Midland International Air and Space Port Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius of Midland International Air and Space Port Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Midland Airpark.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Odessa Airport-Schlemeyer Field Airport.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Interpretation.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing interpretive guidance to assist registrants in preparation of their pay ratio disclosures required by Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K.
John Fieldsend, Special Counsel, or Steven G. Hearne, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-3430, in the Division of Corporation Finance; 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
In 2015, the Commission adopted a rule
In light of the approaching compliance date and concerns raised about the implementation of the disclosure requirement,
The pay ratio rule affords significant flexibility to registrants in determining appropriate methodologies to identify the median employee and calculating the median employee's annual total compensation.
In light of the use of estimates, assumptions, adjustments, and statistical sampling permitted by the rule, pay ratio disclosures may involve a degree of imprecision. This has led some commenters to express concerns about compliance uncertainty and potential liability.
Item 402(u) requires a registrant to disclose the median of the annual total compensation of all its employees excluding its principal executive officer.
The final rule defines the term “employee” to include U.S. employees and employees located in a jurisdiction outside the United States (“non-U.S.
We also believe that the use of existing internal records may, in many circumstances, be appropriate in identifying a registrant's median employee. Instruction 4 to Item 402(u) permits a registrant to identify its median employee using a consistently applied compensation measure, such as information derived from the registrant's tax or payroll records. We are clarifying that a registrant may use internal records that reasonably reflect annual compensation to identify the median employee, even if those records do not include every element of compensation, such as equity awards widely distributed to employees.
We recognize that, when calculating total compensation in accordance with Item 402(c)(2)(x) for the identified median employee that the registrant identified using a consistently applied compensation measure based on internal records, the registrant may determine that there are anomalous characteristics of the identified median employee's compensation that have a significant higher or lower impact on the pay ratio. The Commission discussed this issue in the adopting release specifically and noted that, in such a circumstance, instead of concluding that the consistently applied compensation measure the registrant used was unsuitable to identify its median employee, the registrant may substitute another employee with substantially similar compensation to the original identified median employee based on the compensation measure it used to select the median employee.
For purposes of Item 402(u), the term “employee” or “employee of the registrant” is defined as “an individual employed by the registrant or any of its consolidated subsidiaries.”
Some commenters have expressed concerns about the application of the rule's definition of “employee.”
Item 402(u)(3) makes clear that an “employee” is an individual employed by the registrant.
By the Commission.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Final rule.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 (Remedial Action Schemes) submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. The purpose of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is to ensure that remedial action schemes do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk electric system.
This rule will become effective November 27, 2017.
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 (Remedial Action Schemes).
2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval.
3. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC, including Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 (Remedial Action Scheme Data and Documentation) and PRC-016-1 (Remedial Action Scheme Misoperation).
4. In Order No. 693, the Commission determined that then-proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-0 was a “fill-in-the-blank” Reliability Standard because, while it would require regional reliability organizations to ensure that all special protection systems are properly designed, meet performance requirements, and are coordinated with other protection systems, NERC had not submitted any regional review procedures with the proposed Reliability Standard.
5. On June 23, 2016, the Commission approved NERC's revision to the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary) that redefines special protection system to have the same definition as remedial action scheme, effective April 1, 2017.
A scheme designed to detect predetermined System conditions and automatically take corrective actions that may include, but are not limited to, adjusting or tripping generation (MW and Mvar), tripping load, or reconfiguring a System(s). [Remedial Action Schemes (RAS)] accomplish objectives such as:
• Meet requirements identified in the NERC Reliability Standards;
• Maintain Bulk Electric System (BES) stability;
• Maintain acceptable BES voltages;
• Maintain acceptable BES power flows;
• Limit the impact of Cascading or extreme events.
The revised remedial action scheme definition also identifies fourteen items that do not individually constitute a remedial action scheme.
6. On August 5, 2016, NERC submitted a petition seeking Commission approval of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.
7. NERC stated that, in the United States, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will apply to reliability coordinators, planning coordinators, and remedial action scheme-entities. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 defines remedial action scheme-entities to include each transmission owner, generation owner, or distribution provider that owns all or part of a remedial action scheme.
8. NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 includes nine requirements that combine all existing (both effective and “pending”) Reliability Standards mentioned above into a single, consolidated, continent-wide Reliability Standard to address all aspects of remedial action schemes.
9. NERC explained how the nine Requirements in Reliability Standard PRC- 012-2 work together and with other Reliability Standards. According to NERC, Requirements R1, R2, and R3, together, establish a process for the reliability coordinator to review new or modified remedial action schemes.
10. Requirement R4 requires the planning coordinator to perform a periodic evaluation of each remedial action scheme within its planning area, at least once every five years.
Except for limited impact RAS, a single component failure in the RAS, when the RAS is intended to operate does not prevent the BES from meeting the same performance requirements (defined in Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 or its successor) as those required for the events and conditions for which the RAS is designed.
NERC explained that Requirement R4 “does not supersede or modify [planning coordinator] responsibilities under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.”
11. NERC stated that prior to development of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, two NERC Regions, the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC) and the Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC), used their own remedial action scheme classification regimes to identify remedial action schemes that would meet criteria similar to those for remedial action schemes described as “limited impact” in Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.
12. Requirements R5, R6, and R7 pertain to the analysis of each remedial action scheme operation or misoperation.
13. NERC proposed an implementation plan that includes an effective date for Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 that is the first day of the first calendar quarter that is thirty-six months after the date that the Commission approves the Reliability Standard. Concurrent with the effective date, the implementation plan calls for the retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 and withdrawal of “pending” Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1.
14. On January 19, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to approve Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.
15. In response to the NOPR, entities filed seven sets of comments. We address below the issues raised in the NOPR and comments. The Appendix to this Final Rule lists the entities that filed comments in response to the NOPR.
16. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we hereby approve Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.
17. We also approve the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date proposed by NERC. In addition, we approve, upon the effective date of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, the withdrawal of pending Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1 and the retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 due to their consolidation with proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.
18. The NOPR sought comments on its proposal to clarify that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will not modify or supersede any system performance obligation under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. The NOPR also sought comments on the processes used to ensure LAPS or Type III remedial action schemes' compliance with Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 prior to the effective date of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.
19. NERC, Joint ISOs, and the EEI support the Commission's proposal to approve Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 with a clarification that it does not modify or supersede any system performance obligations under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.
20. NESCOE contends that, absent confirmation that Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 allows responsible entities to assume that all remedial action schemes operate properly, a clarification that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 does not modify or supersede any system performance obligations under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 may be misinterpreted by entities, requiring actions that would increase material costs without benefit.
21. NERC states that LAPS in WECC and Type III remedial actions schemes in NPCC must be compliant with Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 before and after the effective date of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.
22. EEI questions the relevancy of asking the industry to comment on WECC LAPS or NPCC Type III remedial action schemes reclassification as “limited impact” remedial action schemes.
23. We adopt our NOPR proposal and clarify that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 does not modify or supersede any system performance obligations under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. We agree with and, thus, adopt NERC's explanation:
Nothing in proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 or the designation of a RAS as “limited impact” exempts an entity from meeting its performance requirements under [Reliability Standard] TPL-001-4, including the requirement that Non-Consequential Load Loss may not exceed 75 MW for certain Category P1, P2, or P3 contingencies, as provided in Table 1 and footnote 12 of TPL-001-4.
In performing the assessments required pursuant to Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, an entity must consider all RAS, whether designated as “limited impact” or not. While Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, Requirement R2, Part 2.7.1 recognizes that entities may use a RAS as a method for meeting the performance obligations of Table 1, TPL-001-4 does not distinguish between different types of RAS. As such, entities must satisfy the performance requirements of TPL-001-4 considering the actions of “limited impact” RAS and non-limited impact RAS alike.
This clarification should help entities avoid confusion regarding compliance obligations when implementing PRC-012-2.
24. In addition, we accept NERC's assurance that LAPS in WECC and Type III remedial actions schemes in NPCC must be compliant with Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 before and after the effective date of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.
25. The NOPR sought comment on whether NERC should define the term “limited impact” remedial action schemes in the NERC Glossary.
26. NERC, Joint ISOs, and EEI contend that NERC should not define the term “limited impact” remedial action scheme in the NERC Glossary.
27. NERC and EEI maintain that remedial action schemes vary widely in complexity and impact on the bulk electric system.
28. NERC, Joint ISOs, and EEI assert that other comprehensive lists may establish a baseline definition for “limited impact” remedial action schemes.
29. Bonneville and ITC contend that NERC should define the term “limited impact” remedial action schemes in the NERC Glossary.
A remedial action scheme whose operation or misoperation only affects the local area defined by the RAS-entity that owns all of part of the remedial action scheme and does not affect the BES of any adjacent Transmission Owners, Transmission Operators, Generation Owners, or Generation Operators.
ITC also states that the Commission should issue a directive to NERC to define “limited impact” remedial action schemes in the NERC Glossary.
30. We determine not to require NERC to define “limited impact” remedial action schemes in the NERC Glossary. We agree with NERC, Joint ISOs, and EEI that a definition of “limited impact” remedial action schemes is unnecessary at this time given the diversity among the different types, functions, and placements of remedial action schemes across North America. In addition, only Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 uses the term “limited impact” remedial action schemes, thus eliminating one of the principal reasons for normally including terms in the NERC Glossary (
31. MISO contends that the Commission should not approve Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 as proposed.
32. Bonneville contends that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 gives reliability coordinators too much time to complete reviews of remedial action schemes.
33. MISO's opposition to Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is largely based on perceived “inefficiencies” created by the Reliability Standard because it allegedly lacks regional coordination between reliability coordinators and planning coordinators and because of “redundancies” between PRC-012-2 and Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. We are not persuaded that MISO's concerns justify remanding Reliability Standard PRC-012-2. As discussed above, we determine that the Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 satisfies section 215(d)(2) of the FPA in that it is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. MISO accepts that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 “shifts responsibility from the eight Regional Reliability Organizations (RROs) to Reliability Coordinators and Planning Coordinators” and MISO “agrees that the Reliability Coordinators and Planning Coordinators are best positioned to perform review and evaluation tasks associated with RAS.”
34. We are not persuaded by Bonneville's comments regarding the period that reliability coordinators have to review remedial action schemes. NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 establishes a comprehensive, consistent review process that includes a detailed checklist that reliability coordinators must use to identify design and implementation aspects of the remedial action schemes that are critical to an effective framework.
35. The collection of information addressed in this final rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
36.
37. Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 are in the Reliability Standards approved in FERC-725A, (OMB Control No. 1902-0244). Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 will be retired when Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 becomes effective, which will reduce the burden in FERC-725A.
38. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 sets forth Requirements for remedial action schemes to ensure that remedial action schemes do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk electric system and are coordinated to provide the service to the system as intended. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 improves upon the existing Reliability Standards because it removes ambiguity in NERC's original “fill-in-the-blank” Reliability Standards by assigning responsibility to appropriate
39. The following table illustrates the estimated burden to be applied to FERC-725G information collection.
40. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email:
41. Comments concerning the information collection in this Final Rule and the associated burden estimates should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address:
42. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
43. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
44. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will apply to approximately 1681 entities in the United States.
45. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
46. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
47. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
48. The final rule is effective November 27, 2017. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.
By the Commission.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations with respect to the withholding from, and the information reporting on, certain payments of gambling winnings from horse races, dog races, and jai alai and on certain other payments of gambling winnings. The final regulations affect both payers and payees of the gambling winnings.
David Bergman, (202) 317-6845 (not a toll-free number).
This document contains final regulations in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations under section 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The final regulations amend, update, and clarify the existing withholding and information reporting requirements for certain gambling winnings under § 31.3402(q)-1 of the Employment Tax Regulations, and make conforming changes to § 31.3406(g)-2.
On December 30, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-123841-16) in the
Over 2,700 written public comments were received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested. After careful consideration of the written comments, the proposed regulations are adopted as modified by this Treasury Decision.
All of the written comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking were considered and are available at
The proposed regulations contained a new rule for determining the amount of the wager in the case of horse races, dog races, and jai alai to allow all wagers placed in a single parimutuel pool and represented on a single ticket to be aggregated and treated as a single wager. Commenters largely supported the proposed rules because they believe that the rules accurately and fairly reflect parimutuel wagering realities.
Some commenters raised concerns that the single ticket requirement in the proposed regulations did not address electronic wagering. Commenters stated that in horse racing a paper ticket can only accommodate six separate lines of bets. In contrast, electronic wagering utilizes an “account wagering” system that can accommodate dozens (or even hundreds) of lines of bets in a single parimutuel pool, allowing bettors to place more, customized wagers. As a result, some commenters requested a special rule for electronic wagering.
The proposed rule at § 31.3402(q)-1(c)(1)(ii) is specifically not limited to a paper ticket, but also includes an electronic record that is presented to collect proceeds from a wager or wagers placed in a single parimutuel pool. Therefore, the rule in proposed § 31.3402(q)-1(c)(1)(ii) is not dependent on the applicable industry's ticketing format. Further, despite the commenters concern regarding the limits on the number of lines a paper ticket can accommodate, the proposed regulations do not limit the number of bets on a single ticket nor do the proposed regulations contain a rule governing the number of bets that can be contained on a single, electronic record of a wagering transaction.
Another commenter stated that the single ticket requirement puts a person making an electronic bet at a disadvantage because it removes the opportunity to place bets in a single
The single-ticket requirement in the proposed regulations allows aggregation of wagers that are placed in the same parimutuel pool if they are represented on a single ticket. This is the case regardless of whether the ticket is paper or electronic. This requirement was included in the proposed regulations to limit the potential for fraud, such as a winning bettor collecting losing tickets from another bettor or bettors who placed bets in the same parimutuel pool to artificially increase the amount of the wager. In addition, the single-ticket requirement improves administrability because it does not require payers to collect information reflected on multiple tickets. As the preamble to the proposed regulations explains, the single ticket requirement was not intended to limit the amount of the wager to bets placed at a single point in time because a ticket containing prior bets in a single pool can be cancelled, and the original and additional wagers in that pool can be placed on a new ticket. The fraud and administrability concerns that apply to paper tickets do not apply equally to electronic records because each person's bets are reflected on a single electronic wagering account. Accordingly, electronic bettors may aggregate wagers placed at different points in time without having to cancel prior wagers and place them on a new ticket as long as the wagers meet the requirements in the proposed rule—that is, they are placed in a single parimutuel pool and are represented on a single, electronic record.
Because the comments received in response to the proposed rule do not justify any change, the final regulations adopt the proposed rule without modification.
The proposed regulations provided that final regulations would apply to payments made after the date they are published in the
Several commenters raised concerns regarding the thresholds for information reporting and withholding for certain gambling winnings. Another commenter requested that the regulations provide an exception to withholding under section 3402(q). Neither the threshold for information reporting with respect to gambling winnings not subject to withholding nor exceptions to section 3402(q) withholding were the focus of the proposed regulations. In addition, the withholding thresholds are defined by statute. These comments are outside the scope of the proposed regulations, and therefore the comments have not been adopted in the final regulations.
Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required.
It is hereby certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although this rule may affect a substantial number of small entities, the economic impact is minimal because this rule merely provides guidance as to the statutory withholding rules and filing of information returns for payers who make reportable payments of certain gambling winnings and who are required by sections 3402 and 6041 to withhold and make returns reporting those payments. This rule reduces the existing burden on payers to comply with the statutory requirement by simplifying the process for payers to verify payees' identities with a broader range of documents that are more readily available.
This rule also will result in a reduction in the number of forms filed. Instead of treating all components of a bet made by a gambler in a single parimutuel pool as a separate amount wagered, the rules treat all amounts wagered in a single parimutuel pool reflected on a single ticket as the amount wagered for purposes of determining whether reporting or withholding is needed. For the reasons stated, the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) is not required.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on the regulations' impact on small businesses, and no comments were received.
The principal author of these regulations is David Bergman of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Employment taxes, Fishing vessels, Gambling, Income taxes, Penalties, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 31 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(i) A wager placed in a State-conducted lottery (defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section) but only if the proceeds from the wager exceed $5,000;
(ii) A wager placed in a sweepstakes, wagering pool, or lottery other than a State-conducted lottery but only if the proceeds from the wager exceed $5,000; or
(iii) Any other wagering transaction (as defined in paragraph (c)(3) of this section) but only if the proceeds from the wager:
(A) Exceed $5,000; and
(B) Are at least 300 times as large as the amount of the wager.
(2)
(c)
(ii)
(iii)
(B)
(C)
(4)
(d)
(2)
(i) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the winner accompanied by a declaration that no other person is entitled to any portion of such payment, or
(ii) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the payee and of every person entitled to any portion of the payment.
(3)
(4)
(e)
(i) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the payer;
(ii) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the winner;
(iii) The date, amount of the payment, and amount withheld;
(iv) The type of wagering transaction;
(v) Except with respect to winnings from a wager placed in a State-conducted lottery, a general description of the two types of identification (as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section), one of which must have the payee's photograph on it (except in the case of tribal member identification cards in certain circumstances as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section), that the payer relied on to verify the payee's name, address, and taxpayer identification number;
(vi) The amount of winnings from identical wagers; and
(vii) Any other information required by the form, instructions, or other applicable guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.
(2)
(i) Government-issued identification (for example, a driver's license, passport, social security card, military identification card, tribal member identification card issued by a federally-recognized Indian tribe, or voter registration card) in the name of the payee; and
(ii) A Form W-9, “Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification,” signed by the payee that includes the payee's name, address, taxpayer identification number, and other information required by the form. A Form W-9 is not acceptable for this purpose if the payee has modified the form (other than pursuant to instructions to the form) or if the payee has deleted the jurat or other similar provisions by which the payee certifies or affirms the correctness of the statements contained on the form.
(3)
(i) The payee is a member of a federally-recognized Indian tribe;
(ii) The payee presents the payer with a tribal member identification card issued by a federally-recognized Indian tribe stating that the payee is a member of such tribe; and
(iii) The payer is a gaming establishment (as described in § 1.6041-10(b)(2)(iv) of this chapter) owned or licensed (in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 2710) by the tribal government that issued the tribal member identification card referred to in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section.
(4)
(5)
(f) * * *
(i) B places a $15 bet at the cashier window at the racetrack for horse A to win the fifth race at the racetrack that day. After placing the first bet, B gains confidence in horse A's prospects to win and places an additional $40 bet at the cashier window at the racetrack for horse A to win the fifth race, receiving a second ticket for this second bet. Horse A wins the fifth race, and B wins a total of $5,500 (100 to 1 odds) on those bets. The $15 bet and the $40 bet are identical wagers under paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section because winning on both bets depended on the occurrence of the same event and the bets are placed in the same parimutuel pool with the same payer. This is true regardless of the fact that the amount of the wager differs in each case.
(ii) B cashes the tickets at different cashier windows. Pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section and § 1.6011-3, B completes a Form W-2G indicating that the amount of winnings is from identical wagers and provides the form to each cashier. The payments by each cashier of $1,500 and $4,000 are less than the $5,000 threshold for withholding, but under paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, identical wagers are treated as paid with respect to a single wager for purposes of determining the proceeds from a wager. The payment is not subject to withholding or reporting because although the proceeds from the wager are $5,445 ($1,500 + $4,000 − $55), the proceeds from the wager are not at least 300 times as great as the amount wagered ($55 × 300 = $16,500).
B makes two $1,000 bets in a single “show” pool for the same jai alai game, one bet on Player X to show and one bet on Player Y to show. A show bet is a winning bet if the player comes in first, second, or third in a single game. The bets are placed at the same time at the same cashier window, and B receives a single ticket showing both bets. Player X places second in the game, and Player Y does not place first, second, or third in the game. B wins $8,000 from his bet on Player X. Because winning on both bets does not depend on the occurrence of the same event, the bets are not identical bets under paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section. However, pursuant to the rule in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the amount of the wager is the aggregate amount of both wagers ($2,000) because the bets were placed in a single parimutuel pool and reflected on a single ticket. The payment is not subject to withholding or reporting because although the proceeds from the wager are $6,000 ($8,000 − $2,000), the proceeds from the wager are not at least 300 times as great as the amount wagered ($2,000 × 300 = $600,000).
B bets a total of $120 on a three-dog exacta box bet ($20 for each one of
B makes two $12 Pick 6 bets at the horse racetrack at two different cashier windows and receives two different tickets each representing a single $12 Pick 6 bet. In his two Pick 6 bets, B selects the same horses to win races 1-5 but selects different horses to win race 6. All Pick 6 bets on those races at that racetrack are part of a single parimutuel pool from which Pick 6 winning bets are paid. B wins $5,020 from one of his Pick 6 bets. Pursuant to the rule in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the bets are not aggregated for purposes of determining the amount of the wager because the bets are reflected on separate tickets. Assuming that the applicable rate is 25%, the racetrack must deduct and withhold $1,252 (($5,020 − $12) × 25%) because the amount of the proceeds of $5,008 ($5,020 − $12) is greater than $5,000 and is at least 300 times as great as the amount wagered ($12 × 300 = $3,600). The racetrack also must report B's winnings on Form W-2G pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and furnish a copy of the Form W-2G to B.
C makes two $50 bets in two different parimutuel pools for the same jai alai game. One bet is an “exacta” in which C bets on player M to win and player N to “place.” The other bet is a “trifecta” in which C bets on player M to win, player N to “place,” and player O to “show.” C wins both bets and is paid $2,000 with respect to the bet in the “exacta” pool and $3,100 with respect to the bet in the “trifecta” pool. Under paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, the bets are not identical bets. Under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the bets are not aggregated for purposes of determining the amount of the wager for either payment because they are not wagers in the same parimutuel pool. No section 3402(q) withholding is required on either payment because neither payment separately exceeds the $5,000 withholding threshold.
C makes two $100 bets for the same dog to win a particular race. C places one bet at the racetrack and one bet at an off-track betting establishment, but the two pools constitute a single pool. C receives separate tickets for each bet. C wins both bets and is paid $4,000 from the racetrack and $4,000 from the off-track betting establishment. Under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the bets are not aggregated for purposes of determining the amount of the wager because the wager placed at the racetrack and the wager placed at the off-track betting establishment are reflected on separate tickets, despite being placed in the same parimutuel pool. No section 3402(q) withholding is required because neither payment separately exceeds the $5,000 withholding threshold.
C places a $200 Pick 6 bet for a series of races at the racetrack on a particular day and receives a single ticket for the bet. No wager correctly picks all six races that day, so that portion of the pool carries over to the following day. On the following day, C places an additional $200 Pick 6 bet for that day's series of races and receives a new ticket for that bet. C wins $100,000 on the second day. Pursuant to the rule in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the bets are on two separate tickets, so C's two Pick 6 bets are not aggregated for purposes of determining the amount of the wager. Assuming that the applicable rate is 25%, the racetrack must deduct and withhold $24,950 (($100,000 − $200) × 25%) because the amount of the proceeds of $99,800 ($100,000 − $200) is greater than $5,000, and is at least 300 times as great as the amount wagered ($200 × 300 = $60,000). The racetrack also must report C's winnings on Form W-2G pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and furnish a copy of the Form W-2G to C.
(g)
(h)
(d) * * *
(2)
(i) The amount paid with respect to the amount of the wager reduced, at the option of the payer; by
(ii) The amount of the wager.
(3)
(h)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent special local regulation for the Fautasi Ocean Challenge canoe races in Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa. These annual events historically occur four separate weekend or holiday days each year. The annual dates include one day in April and three separate days between Veteran's Day and the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Each of the four days, canoe races are held between 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. This action is necessary to safeguard the participants and
This rule is effective October 27, 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 Lieutenant Commander John Bannon, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu; telephone (808) 541-4359, email
On January 18, 2017, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
This event will consist of a series of three single race days within Pago Pago Harbor each November and one race day in April. The event will include 50 longboats with paddling crews of 30-50 persons each. It is anticipated that a large number of spectator pleasure craft will be drawn to the event. Spectator vessels and commercial vessel traffic would pose a significant safety hazard to the longboats, longboat crew members, and other persons and vessels involved with the event due to the longboats limited maneuverability within the port. Traditionally, the event is held on Fridays, Saturdays, or holiday week days, pending when Veteran's Day falls each year, and are dependent on local weather; both factors will dictate the event days each year.
The Captain of the Port, Honolulu (COTP), is establishing a permanent special local regulation to minimize vessel traffic in Pago Pago Harbor before, during, and after the scheduled event to safeguard persons and vessels during the longboat races. A regulated area is a water area, shore area, or water and shore area, for safety or environmental purposes, of which access is limited to authorized persons, vehicles, or vessels. The statutory basis for this rulemaking is 33 U.S.C. 1233, which gives the Coast Guard, under a delegation from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, regulatory authority to enforce the Ports and Waterways Safety Act.
The Captain of the Port Honolulu has determined that potential safety hazards exist to the longboats, longboat crew members, and other persons and vessels involved with the event due to the longboats limited maneuverability within the port and large amount of spectator vessels and commercial traffic drawn to the event. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the event.
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published January 18, 2017. However, after the NPRM period, Coast Guard was notified by the event sponsor that an additional event occurs on April 17 annually in celebration of American Samoa's Flag Day. The Coast Guard is amending this regulation to include this event.
This rule will create a permanent special local regulation in Pago Pago Harbor. The regulated area will close the harbor to all vessels not authorized by the COTP for entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the port for the duration of the event. The COTP will authorize registered participants, support vessels, and enforcement vessels to enter and remain in the area. No other vessels will be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The harbor will remain closed until the Coast Guard issues an “All Clear” after races have concluded and the harbor is deemed safe for normal operations. This rule will not require any vessel already moored to evacuate the port, provided they are moored in such a way that they do not interfere with the event.
The COTP will use all appropriate means to notify the public when the special local regulation in this rule will be enforced. Such means may include 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, 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-day of the Special Local Regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safety transit through the event with prior coordination and approval by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, or designated representative. Furthermore, the annual events occur during times of the year when commercial vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulation.
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
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through 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 temporary and limited safety zone in Pago Pago Harbor. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) 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, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) No spectator shall anchor, block, loiter or impede the transit of participants or support/enforcement vessels in the regulated area during the enforcement dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through a support/enforcement vessel.
(3) Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the duration of the event.
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Delaware. The Clean Air Act's (CAA) good neighbor provision requires EPA and states to address the interstate transport of air pollution that affects the ability of downwind states to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Specifically, the good neighbor provision requires each state in its SIP to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in a downwind state. Delaware has submitted a SIP revision that addresses the interstate transport requirements, among other things, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA has determined that Delaware's SIP has adequate provisions to prohibit the state from significantly contributing to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. EPA is approving Delaware's SIP revision submittal in regards to the good neighbor interstate transport provision in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
This rule is effective on December 26, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by October 27, 2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0408 at
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at
On March 27, 2013, the State of Delaware through the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(D)(i), of the CAA as it relates to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIP revisions meeting the applicable elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2).
On March 27, 2013, the State of Delaware through DNREC provided a SIP revision submittal to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In this rulemaking action, EPA is approving one portion of Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal—the portion addressing prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA previously acted on other portions of Delaware's March 27, 2013 SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
In order to demonstrate that its SIP adequately addresses interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal identifies measures in its approved SIP that cover stationary, mobile, and area sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO
The CAA gives EPA a backstop role to issue federal implementation plans (FIPs), as appropriate, in the event that states fail to submit approvable SIPs. On September 8, 2016, EPA took steps to effectuate this backstop role with respect to emissions in 22 eastern states (not including Delaware) by finalizing an update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) ozone season program that addresses the obligations of good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504. This CSAPR Update establishes statewide NO
(1) Identify downwind receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS;
(2) determine which upwind states contribute to these identified problems in amounts sufficient to link
(3) identify and quantify, for states linked to downwind air quality problems, upwind emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS; and
(4) reduce the identified upwind emissions for states that are found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind by adopting permanent and enforceable measures in a FIP or SIP.This four-step framework is informed by cost-effectiveness and feasibility of controls, emissions, meteorology, and air quality factors. In the CSAPR Update, EPA used this four-step framework to determine each linked upwind state's significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of downwind air quality.
While EPA's CSAPR Update analysis included an assessment of Delaware, the State was not included in the final CSAPR Update FIPs. In the CSAPR Update, EPA found that steps 1 and 2 of the CSAPR framework linked Delaware to a downwind maintenance receptor in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. EPA applied step 3 of the CSAPR framework to establish EGU NO
For this analysis, EPA applied a multi-factor evaluation of cost, NO
The emission reductions under the various levels of emission budgets analyzed by EPA can result in air quality improvements such that individual receptors drop below the level of the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on the cumulative air quality improvement from the states analyzed. In examining emissions contribution to nonattainment and maintenance receptors for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA used the Air Quality Assessment Tool (AQAT) to estimate the air quality impacts of the upwind state EGU NO
EPA examined emission budget levels of: $0 per ton; $800 per ton; $1,400 per ton; $3,400 per ton; $5,000 per ton; and $6,400 per ton.
EPA evaluated EGU NO
In conclusion, when evaluating all the available information, EPA finds that Delaware has implemented measures that have reduced statewide VOC and NO
EPA is approving the portion of the March 27, 2013 Delaware SIP revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in accordance with section 110 of the CAA for the reasons discussed in this rulemaking.
On April 3, 2014 (79 FR 18644), EPA finalized approval of the following infrastructure elements or portions thereof from the March 27, 2013 submittal: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This action approves the remaining portions of the March 27, 2013 SIP revision, which address prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, also known as the good neighbor provision. EPA did not take action upon these elements in our prior SIP approval action, published on April 3, 2014 (79 FR 18644).
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 27, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this issue of the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of fluazifop-p-butyl in or multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective September 27, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 27, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0878, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. 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:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0878 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 27, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0878, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the levels at which tolerances are being established for some commodities. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for fluazifop-P-butyl including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with fluazifop-P-butyl follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The toxicity profile shows that the principal toxic effects of fluazifop-P-butyl are changes in the liver and kidney following exposure
Other adversely effected organs included the testes and eyes in rats and hamsters. Adrenal fatty vacuolation and increased incidence of thymic involution were noted in the chronic dog study. Gall bladder stones and ovarian cell hyperplasia were noted in the carcinogenicity study in hamsters. From the toxicity studies, the lowest LOAELs were observed in long-term studies, suggesting progression of toxicity with duration of treatment.
Quantitative sensitivity of the fetus was observed in the rat developmental studies in which no maternal toxicity was observed. Developmental toxicity in the rat was generally related to incomplete ossification. At higher doses, decreased fetal body weight and an increased incidence of diaphragmatic hernia were observed. In the rabbit, maternal and developmental toxicity were observed at the same dose. Maternal toxicity included abortions, weight loss, and death, and fetal toxicity included abortions, skeletal effects, and fetuses that were small and/or had cloudy eyes. In the rat reproduction and fertility study, maternal (increased liver weight, bile duct hyperplasia, geriatric nephropathy) and offspring (decreased pup viability, decreased pup body weight, and hydronephrosis) toxicity were observed at the same dose level, and decreased female fertility was observed at the highest dose.
No immunotoxicity was observed at the highest dose tested in the immunotoxicity study in rats. Although other studies indicated effects on the immune system organs (
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by fluazifop-P-butyl as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD)s and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluazifop-P-butyl used for human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.
1.
i.
Such effects were identified for fluazifop-P-butyl. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance level residues with a ratio adjustment for additional metabolites of concern.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
•
•
•
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency estimated the average PCT for existing uses as follows:
Asparagus, 2.5%; carrots, 15%; cotton, 1%; dry beans/peas, 1%; garlic, 10%; grapefruit, 15%; grapes, 2.5%; nectarines, 1%; onions, 10%; oranges, 2.5%; peaches, 2.5%; peanuts, 1%; plums, 2.5%; potatoes, 1%, prunes, 2.5%; soybeans, 2.5%; and sugar beets, 1%.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS) and proprietary market surveys for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis and a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than 2.5%. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the most recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%, except for situations in which the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%. In cases where the estimated value is less than 2.5% but greater than 1%, the average and maximum PCT used are 2.5%. If the estimated value is less than 1%, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which fluazifop-P-butyl may be applied in a particular area.
2.
Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) model and the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM-GW) model, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fluazifop-P-butyl for acute exposures are estimated to be 56.6 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 6.8 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 4.41 ppb for surface water and 3.39 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 56.6 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 4.41 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Fluazifop-P-butyl is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Lawns/turf and ornamentals. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: For handlers, exposure is expected as a result of application to turf and ornamentals. Post-application exposure is also expected as a result of being in an environment that has been previously treated with fluazifop-P-butyl.
For adult handlers, risk estimates are presented as an aggregated risk index (ARI) since the PODs for dermal and inhalation routes of exposure are based on the same study/effects, but have different LOCs (dermal LOC = 100 and inhalation LOC = 1000). The target ARI is 1; ARIs of less than 1 are risk estimates of concern. None of the residential handler scenarios resulted in a risk estimate of concern (
For post-application, only dermal and incidental oral (for kids only) exposures were assessed. Since the PODs for these routes are based on the same effects and have the same LOC, risk estimates can be combined. All residential post-application MOEs are greater than the LOC of 100, and are therefore not of concern.
The Agency used the worst-case exposure scenarios for all population subgroups for recommendation for inclusion in the aggregate assessment. The residential exposure scenario used in the adult aggregate assessment is dermal and inhalation handler exposure
4.
EPA has not found fluazifop-P-butyl to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and fluazifop-P-butyl does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fluazifop-P-butyl does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for fluazifop-P-butyl for assessing these scenarios is complete.
ii. Possible signs of neurotoxicity were observed at 500 mg/kg in the acute neurotoxicity study. The clinical signs observed included reduced activity, decreased rearing, hunched posture and/or piloerection, and decreased motor activity (total distance and number of rearings) in both sexes. However, considering that this was a bolus (gavage) dose at half the limit dose, the nature of the observations and the lack of neuropathology suggests that the findings were a result of generalized toxicity rather than neurotoxicity.
Slight increases in absolute (2.5%) and relative (1.6%) brain weights were seen in both sexes at 3,000 ppm (≉194 mg/kg/day) at termination in the carcinogenicity study in hamsters. Slight increases in brain weights were seen in female rats (2.9%) at 100 mg/kg/day and in male hamsters (4%) at 120 mg/kg/day after subchronic exposures with fluazifop-P-butyl. The toxicological significance of the marginal increases in brain weights at high doses is unknown in the absence of corroborative histopathological lesions.
The Agency concluded that there was not a concern for neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to fluazifop-P-butyl at relevant exposure levels. The only indication of potential neurotoxicity was due to a large (500 mg/kg) bolus dose (gavage) in the acute neurotoxicity study. No developmental or central nervous system malformations were seen in any of the developmental toxicity studies with rats or rabbits. No increased offspring sensitivity over parent was seen in the rabbit pre-natal developmental studies or in the rat post-natal reproduction study, and no evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology was observed in adult animals. Although malformed fetuses were seen at high dose levels in the absence of maternal toxicity in the rat developmental toxicity studies, the definitive developmental endpoint in five developmental studies was selected based on delayed ossification and fetal weight decrement at much lower doses (100-fold lower). Therefore, the conditions were not met for requiring a developmental neurotoxicity study.
iii. There was no indication of fetal or offspring susceptibility in rabbit developmental or rat reproduction studies. Quantitative sensitivity of the fetus was noted in the rat developmental studies as described above. However, the selected PODs are protective for all exposure scenarios where the developing fetus is of concern. Therefore, the degree of concern is low.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments include assumptions that result in high-end estimates of dietary food exposure.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Fluazifop-P-butyl is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to fluazifop-P-butyl.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate ARIs of 2.1 for adults, 51 for youths 11-16 years old, 13 for children 6-11 years old, and 1.7 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for fluazifop-P-butyl is an ARI of 1 or below, these ARIs are not of concern.
4.
Intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, fluazifop-P-butyl is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for fluazifop-P-butyl.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methodology (High Performance Liquid Chromatography/Ultra-Violet Spectrometry (HPLC/UV)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established any MRLs for fluazifop-P-butyl.
The petitioner requested a tolerance of 5.0 ppm for “Lettuce, head and leaf”. This is not a standard commodity definition. Rather, the Agency is establishing separate tolerances for “Lettuce, head” and “Lettuce, leaf” at 3.0 and 5.0 ppm, respectively, as determined by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) MRL calculation procedures. The caneberry subgroup 13-07A tolerance is being established at 0.08 ppm instead of 0.05 ppm as requested since two of the raspberry trials were determined not to be independent. The requested tolerances for grass forage and hay is being established as fescue forage and hay because the use requested for the corresponding pesticide registration is limited to fescue grass varieties. In addition, where appropriate, EPA has modified the numerical expression of tolerance values in order to conform to current Agency policy on significant figures.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fluazifop-P-butyl, butyl (2
Additionally, the existing tolerances for grape; onion, bulb; and sweet potato, roots are removed as unnecessary, since they are covered by the newly established crop group tolerances, and the tolerance with regional registrations for rhubarb at 0.5 ppm, currently under section 180.411(c), will now be listed in
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin in or on cacao bean, dried bean. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested the tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective September 27, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 27, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. 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:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 27, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is establishing tolerances that differ from what the petitioner requested including; the commodity definition, tolerance level, and for which commodities. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has
In the
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by oxathiapiprolin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
In conclusion, based on the findings of the December 5, 2016
Method 30422 (Supplement No. 1) was developed for plant commodities, and Method 31138 was developed for livestock commodities. Residues of oxathiapiprolin and associated metabolites are extracted from crop or livestock commodity samples using a solution of formic acid, water and acetonitrile, and diluted with acetonitrile and water. Both methods use liquid chromotography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS), specifically reverse-phase liquid chromatography (LC), and detection by electrospray tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS).
The FDA multi-residue methods are not suitable for detection and enforcement of oxathiapiprolin residues or associated metabolites. However, the European Multiresidue Method (DFG Method S19) and the QuEChERS Multiresidue Method have shown success in some matrices.
Adequate enforcement methodology (LC/MS/MS) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch/BEAD/OPP, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established maximum residue limits (MRLs) for oxathiapiprolin.
A tolerance is established for “Cacao bean, dried bean”, rather than “Cacao bean, bean”, to comply with current Agency crop-naming policy. Also, EPA determined that tolerances for residues of oxathiapiprolin in or on the processed commodities of cacao bean, roasted bean; cacao bean, chocolate; and cacao bean, cocoa powder are unnecessary because these commodities are covered by cacao bean, dried bean tolerance. Finally, the tolerance for cacao bean, dried bean is being established at 0.15 ppm, rather than at 0.1 ppm as requested, based on the available residue data.
Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin, 1-[4-[4-[5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-isoxazolyl]-2-thiazolyl]-1-piperidinyl]-2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1
This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
NHTSA is issuing this final rule to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 305, “Electric-powered vehicles: Electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection,” to adopt various electrical safety requirements found in Global Technical Regulation (GTR) No. 13, “Hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles,” and other sources. This final rule updates FMVSS No. 305 using modern and harmonized safety requirements and facilitates the introduction of new technologies, including hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) and 48-volt mild hybrid technologies. This final rule is a deregulatory action. It imposes no costs and adjusts FMVSS No. 305 to give more flexibility to manufacturers not only to use modern electrical safety designs to produce electric vehicles, but also to introduce new technologies to the U.S. market. To expand FMVSS No. 305's performance requirements beyond post-crash conditions, NHTSA adopts electrical safety requirements to protect against direct and indirect contact of high voltage sources during everyday operation of electric-powered vehicles. Also, NHTSA adopts an optional method of meeting post-crash electrical safety requirements, consistent with that in GTR No. 13, involving use of physical barriers to prevent direct or indirect contact (by occupants, emergency services personnel and others) with high voltage sources.
Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions received will be posted without change to
For technical issues, you may call William J. Sánchez, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 202-493-0248) (fax: 202-493-2990). For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (telephone: 202-366-2992) (fax: 202-366-3820). Address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
NHTSA is issuing this final rule to update FMVSS No. 305, “Electric-powered vehicles: Electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection.” As indicated in its title, one purpose of FMVSS No. 305 is to reduce deaths and injuries from electrical shock. Currently, the standard focuses on post-crash safety, requiring vehicles with high voltage sources to protect vehicle occupants, rescue workers and others who may contact the vehicle after a crash. To protect against electric shock, FMVSS No. 305 currently requires that, during and after the crash tests specified in the standard, high voltage sources in the vehicle must be either (a) electrically isolated from the vehicle's chassis
This final rule is a deregulatory action as it imposes no costs and adjusts FMVSS No. 305 to give more flexibility to manufacturers not only for current electric vehicle designs, but also for introducing new technologies to the U.S. market, including hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) and 48-volt mild hybrid technologies. In adopting the physical barrier option, this final rule adjusts the standard to remove an obstruction that prevented HFCVs from being offered for sale in the U.S. Adopting the physical barrier option also enables manufacturers to produce 48-volt mild hybrid systems without having to use electrical isolation safety measures that involve more complexity, higher consumer costs, and higher mass, without an incremental safety benefit. This rule responds to petitions for rulemaking from Toyota Motor North America Inc. (Toyota)
NHTSA is also issuing this final rule as part of the agency's ongoing effort to avoid unnecessary differences in the vehicle safety standards of different countries through a harmonization process under the United Nation Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 1998 Global Agreement (“1998 Agreement”). The efforts of the U.S.
Similar to FMVSS No. 305, GTR No. 13 has requirements intended to reduce deaths and injuries from electrical shock, but addresses both normal vehicle operation and post-crash safety. Also, while the various post-crash compliance options in GTR No. 13 are like those in FMVSS No. 305, GTR No. 13 includes the physical barrier option to prevent direct and indirect contact
On March 10, 2016, NHTSA issued the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on which this final rule is based (81 FR 12647). The NPRM proposed adopting GTR No. 13's normal vehicle operation requirements, and proposed adopting a post-crash physical barrier compliance option like that in GTR No. 13.
Comments on the NPRM were generally supportive of the proposed changes. Some commenters requested modifying the proposed regulatory text to clarify the wording of requirements and test procedures or to align the text with GTR No. 13 and ECE R.100, “Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to specific requirements for the electric power train,” and some suggested NHTSA should not adopt some requirements for lack of safety need.
This final rule adopts most aspects of the proposal, with some parts changed in response to commenters. The final rule improves motor vehicle safety by expanding FMVSS No. 305's protections to normal vehicle operations. The updated post-crash performance requirements ensure that new power train configurations provide a comparable level of post-crash safety as that of existing electric vehicles.
This final rule reflects the state-of-the art in vehicle electrical safety. It draws from the findings from the agency's research on the physical barrier compliance option in GTR No. 13 (Battelle study),
The rule not only gives more flexibility to manufacturers to use modern electrical safety designs to produce electric vehicles and introduce new vehicle technologies, but also paves the way globally for future innovations on vehicle electrical safety. A new GTR is under development
We estimate that the final rule will result in essentially no cost to consumers in the U.S. This rule adopts requirements that closely mirror the electrical safety provisions of GTR No. 13, which have already been implemented by manufacturers in this country.
This section summarizes the requirements adopted by this final rule. For the convenience of the reader, we also note the few notable differences between this rule and the NPRM. The reasons underlying our decisions are explained in the body of this preamble and in the NPRM.
This final rule adds electrical safety requirements for vehicle performance during every day (normal) vehicle operations to mitigate the risk of electric shock due to direct or indirect contact of high voltage sources or loss in electrical isolation. We also adopt requirements to assure electrical safety during refueling and to mitigate driver error in vehicle operation.
The rule specifies:
A. IPXXD protection degree for high voltage sources inside passenger and luggage compartments, and IPXXB protection degree for high voltage sources outside passenger and luggage compartments.
B. IPXXB protection degree for service disconnects that can be opened or removed without tools.
C. Markings on certain electrical protection barriers of high voltage sources (
D. In a change from the NPRM, this rule has distinct direct contact protection requirements for connectors and the vehicle charge inlet. First, it requires that the IPXXB/IPXXD protection levels be met by each connector when connected to its mating component. IPXXD protection degree is required for connectors located inside the passenger and luggage compartments. IPXXB protection degree is required for connectors and vehicle charge inlets located outside these compartments. Second, connectors must meet at least one of the following three requirements: (1) If a connector or vehicle charge inlet can be separated from its mating component without the use of tools, the IPXXB/IPXXD protection level must be provided when the connector is uncoupled from its mating component; (2) if a connector or vehicle charge inlet can be separated from its mating component without the use of tools, the voltage of live parts of the connector or vehicle charge inlet becomes less than or equal to 60 VDC or 30 VAC within one second of separating from its mating component; or, (3) the connector has a locking mechanism (at least two distinct actions are needed to separate the connector from its mating component), and there are other components that must be removed to separate the connector from its mating component and these cannot be removed without the use of tools.
E. This rule requires orange color outer coverings for cables of high voltage sources that are located outside electrical protection barriers.
This rule requires exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers to be conductively connected to the chassis with a resistance less than 0.1 ohms, and the resistance between two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are within 2.5 meters of each other must be less than 0.2 ohms.
A. This rule requires 500 ohms/volt or higher electrical isolation for AC high voltage sources and 100 ohms/volt or higher for DC high voltage sources.
B. Where AC and DC buses are connected, this rule permits AC high voltage sources to have electrical isolation of 100 ohms/volt or higher, provided they also have the direct and indirect contact protection described in i and ii, above.
This rule requires an electrical isolation monitoring system for DC high voltage sources on fuel cell vehicles.
This final rule requires:
A. Electrical isolation greater than or equal to 500 ohms/volt between the electrical chassis and other high voltage sources connected to the vehicle charge inlet (for connecting to the AC external power supply). Note that this is a change from the 1 million ohms isolation resistance requirement proposed in the NPRM.
B. IPXXB/IPXXD protection level for the vehicle charge inlet when connected to the charge connector and IPXXB/IPXXD protection level or low voltage when separated from the charge connector.
C. Conductive connection of the electric chassis to earth ground before and during the application of exterior voltage to the vehicle.
This final rule includes requirements for—
A. Providing at least a momentary indication to the driver when the vehicle is first placed in “possible active driving mode” after manual activation of the propulsion system.
B. Informing the driver if the vehicle is still in a possible active driving mode,
C. Preventing vehicle movement of more than 150 millimeters (mm) by its own propulsion system when the vehicle charging system is connected to the external electric power supply in such a way that charging is possible. (The 150 mm limit is a change from the NPRM, which did not specify a distance.)
This final rule also amends FMVSS No. 305's post-crash electrical safety requirements.
The rule adds an optional method of meeting post-crash electrical safety requirements through physical barrier protection of high voltage sources. The specifications of this optional method of electric safety include requirements ensuring that:
A. High voltage sources are enclosed in barriers that prevent direct human contact with high voltage sources (IPXXB protection level),
B. Exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers are conductively connected to the chassis with a resistance less than 0.1 ohms. The resistance between any two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other must be less than 0.2 ohms.
C. Voltage between exposed conductive parts of an electrical protection barrier and the electrical chassis, and between two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier that are less than 2.5 meters from each other, must be less than or equal to 60 VDC or 30 VAC (low voltage). (The NPRM was worded to apply this requirement to voltage between any exposed conductive parts of the vehicle.)
An AC high voltage source that is conductively connected to a DC high voltage source may meet an electrical isolation requirement of 100 ohms/volt or greater, provided the AC high voltage source also has physical barrier protection specified in i(A) and i(B), above.
We make minor changes to a number of proposed definitions to clarify the standard and to achieve consistency with other definitions. We adopt terms such as “high voltage live parts,” “exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers,” and “possible active driving mode” in place of proposed terms that were less clear.
We make a minor correction to Figure 7b and clarify Figure 8.
We clarify several test procedures, including how we will use the IPXXB and IPXXD protection degree probes and how we determine the voltage between various conductive parts. We provide manufacturers the option of choosing between two methods for measuring resistance, and, in a change from the NPRM, provide that resistance between two exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier may be computed from measured resistances.
The compliance date for this final rule is one year from the date of publication of the final rule in the
The United States is a contracting party to the 1998 Agreement, which was entered into force in 2000 and is administered by the UN ECE's Working Party (WP).29. The purpose of this agreement is to establish GTRs.
GTR No. 13 addresses hydrogen fuel cell vehicle technology. NHTSA closely collaborated with experts from contracting parties to the 1998 Agreement, particularly Germany and Japan, to develop a GTR for hydrogen fueled vehicles that establishes levels of safety that are equivalent to or exceeds those for conventional gasoline fueled vehicles. The collaborative effort in this process led to the establishment of GTR No. 13 in June 2013.
The U.S. voted on June 27, 2013 in favor of establishing GTR No. 13. In voting yes to establishing the GTR, NHTSA is obligated to submit the technical regulation to the process used in the U.S. to adopt the requirement into our law or regulation.
This final rule addresses the electrical safety requirements in GTR No. 13 (
HFCVs have an electric drive-train powered by a fuel cell that generates electric power electrochemically using hydrogen. The hydrogen is electrochemically combined with oxygen (from air) within the fuel cell system to produce high-voltage electric power. The electric power is supplied to the electric drive motors and/or used to charge batteries and capacitors. HFCVs may also be equipped with batteries to supplement the output of fuel cells and may also recapture energy during stopping through regenerative braking, which recharges batteries and thereby improves efficiency.
The fuel cell provides DC power while the drive motors typically operate on AC. Therefore, the power train has: (a) Inverters to convert DC power to AC to run the motors and (b) converters to convert AC power generated in the drive motor during regenerative braking to DC to store energy in the batteries. In many respects, the electric power train of an HFCV is like that of electric and hybrid electric vehicles.
GTR No. 13 specifies electrical safety requirements during normal vehicle operation and after a crash test, to protect against electric shock in the event of a failure in the high voltage propulsion system. GTR No. 13 includes a compliance option for electrical vehicle safety that prevents direct and indirect contact of high voltage sources by way of “physical barriers.”
The industry has long requested NHTSA to adopt a physical barrier option into FMVSS No. 305. In 2010, NHTSA decided against adoption of a physical barrier option because the agency believed not enough was known about the option.
Since that decision in 2010, several milestones ensued. GTR No. 13 was established, a product of shared data and knowledge from governing bodies and international experts around the world. The Battelle study was completed and the physical barrier countermeasure design was made more robust in response to its findings, with SAE International revising SAE J1766 in January 2014 to set forth more protective safety practices than it had before. Importantly, there have now been years of worldwide recognition of the physical barrier option as an acceptable means of providing electrical safety in electric powered vehicles, with years of experience in design labs and in the field showing no evidence of associated safety problems.
This final rule responds not only to GTR No. 13 but also to petitions for rulemaking from Toyota and the Alliance. The petitions are discussed in detail in the March 10, 2016 NPRM. See 81 FR at 12659-12663.
Petitioner Toyota believes that an additional compliance option that includes elements of the physical barrier option in GTR No. 13 is needed to allow HFCVs to be offered for sale in the U.S.
HFCVs and other electric powered vehicles operate with their DC high voltage sources (
Petitioner Alliance requests a physical barrier compliance option to facilitate the production of 48-volt mild hybrid technologies as well as hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The petitioner asks NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 305 to adopt a physical barrier option incorporated in the SAE J1766 January 2014,
The Alliance states that while vehicles with 48-volt mild hybrid systems use mostly low-voltage components that do not present any danger of harmful electric shock, AC voltage sources contained within the system can exceed the 30 volt threshold in FMVSS No. 305 for consideration as a high voltage source. Since these systems are grounded to the vehicle chassis, they cannot meet FMVSS No. 305's existing electrical isolation option. The petitioner states that, while it is feasible to design a 48-volt mild hybrid system that is isolated from the chassis and meets FMVSS No. 305's electrical isolation requirements, such designs involve more complexity, higher consumer costs, and higher mass resulting in reduced fuel economy and increased emissions. The petitioner believes that these consequences are inappropriate when there would be no incremental safety benefit gained beyond that associated with SAE J1766's physical barrier option.
NHTSA received six comments on the NPRM. Comments were received from two motor vehicle manufacturer associations (the Alliance and the Association of Global Automakers (Global)), three vehicle manufacturers (Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (Mercedes-Benz), Tesla Motors Inc. (Tesla), and Fuji Heavy Industries on behalf of Subaru of America Inc. (Subaru)), and one individual.
The commenters strongly support that FMVSS No. 305 should include
Commenters request modifications to certain definitions and terms generally used in the regulatory text. The Alliance believes that the definition of “exposed conductive part” should be revised to clarify that the part is not normally energized (that energization can occur under a fault condition). The Alliance also requests replacing the term, “exposed conductive parts” in the regulatory text with “exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers,” so as to exclude conductive parts that are not part of the electrical protection barriers and the electric power train, such as hose clamps. Similarly, Global suggests the term be replaced with “exposed conductive part of the electrical protection barrier enclosing the high voltage source,” throughout the regulatory text. Commenters suggest “electrical barriers,” should be replaced with “electrical protection barriers,” in the regulatory text for consistency and to reduce ambiguity. The Alliance requests a broadened definition for “external electric power supply,” to refer to “electric energy storage device,” in part because the proposed definition uses the term “propulsion battery,” which is not defined. The Alliance requests replacing the term, “live parts” with “high voltage live parts” in the regulatory text since electrical safety requirements apply to high voltage sources.
NHTSA reviewed these comments and generally agrees with revising the definitions and terms at issue, to clarify the text of FMVSS No. 305. We summarized our decisions in Table 1 and have incorporated appropriate changes into the regulatory text.
The Alliance asks that we amend the definition of “high voltage source” to make clear that a component is a high voltage source based on its working voltage. The current definition states: “
The Alliance and Global point out that the definition of luggage compartment mistakenly refers to “protecting the power train” instead of “protecting the occupant.” We note that the definition's reference to “hood” should also refer to “trunk lid,” as in the U.S. luggage compartments are usually thought of as trunks, which are thought to have “trunk lids.” We have made the corrections in the text.
The Alliance requests adding a definition for the term “connector,” assuming NHTSA will adopt separate electrical safety requirements for connectors (this issue is discussed in a section below). The Alliance states that a connector is a device that provides mechanical connection and disconnection of high voltage electrical conductors to a suitable mating component, including its housing. Since this final rule adopts such separate requirements for connectors, the agency agrees to add a definition for “connector” to the regulatory text.
The Alliance states that “electric energy storage device” in proposed S5.4.3.2 is too specific and thereby restrictive, and that “electric circuit” should be used instead. We concur the proposed term is overly specific, but since “electric circuit” is not used or defined in FMVSS No. 305, we will use “electric component” in place of the term at issue.
Subaru requests clarification of the meaning of the term “normal vehicle operation.” Subaru asks whether the term refers to anytime the vehicle is being driven under its own power or to any vehicle operation when no system faults or abnormalities are present. Subaru asks whether the reference to normal vehicle operation in the definition of the term, “live parts,”
NHTSA believes that “normal vehicle operation” includes operating modes and conditions that can reasonably be encountered during typical operation of the vehicle, such as driving, parking and standing in traffic, as well as, charging using chargers that are compatible with the specific charging ports installed on the vehicle. It does not include conditions where the vehicle is damaged, either by a crash or road debris, subjected to fire or water submersion, or in a state where service and or maintenance is needed or being performed.
The Alliance, Global and Subaru ask about adding a definition for an “enclosure,” since in the NPRM the agency used the term “enclosure” as though an enclosure was distinct from an electrical protection barrier. We meant the terms to be synonymous. However, rather than add the definition, for simplicity we have removed the term “enclosure” from the standard and only use the term “electrical protection barrier.”
For the convenience of the reader, Table 1 below shows the notable added and revised terms.
The Alliance requests we add paragraphs to the regulatory text explicitly stating that the electrical safety requirements (S5.3) and the monitoring system requirement (S5.4) of FMVSS No. 305 do not apply to the DC part of a 48-volt mild hybrid system. (This pertains to the DC part that is conductively connected to the electrical chassis and that has a working voltage less than or equal to 60 VDC, and the maximum voltage between the DC live part and any other live part is less than or equal to 30 VAC or 60 VDC.) The commenter states that the draft EVS-GTR includes such a statement.
We do not believe there is a need for such a provision in FMVSS No. 305, for several reasons.
First, as discussed in a previous section, we are amending the definition of “high voltage source,” as the Alliance requests, to make clear that a component is a high voltage source based on its working voltage. That change provides the clarification the commenter seeks.
Second, the Alliance asks that NHTSA provide in the preamble the following statement for further clarification. The commenter's statement is: “Where electrical circuits, that are galvanically connected to each other, and fulfilling the condition, that the maximum voltage between a DC live part and any other live part (DC or AC) is less [than] or equal [to] 30 VAC and 60 VDC, only the components or parts of the electric circuit that operate on high voltage are classified as high voltage sources.” We concur that the statement is consistent with NHTSA's intent.
Third, the agency does not believe the above-quoted text is needed in FMVSS No. 305 because of a fundamental difference between the standard and the draft EVS-GTR. (This difference also exists between FMVSS No. 305 and GTR No. 13 and ECE R.100.) The electrical safety requirements in FMVSS No. 305 apply to each high voltage source in the power train, while the electrical safety requirements in the draft EVS-GTR would apply to high voltage buses and electric circuits. This means that NHTSA determines whether the electrical safety requirements of FMVSS No. 305 apply to electric components that are connected to or part of the electric power train by individually assessing each component separately, analyzing its working voltage.
GTR No. 13 specifies direct contact protection requirements for high voltage connectors separately. Per GTR No. 13, connectors do not need to meet IPXXB protection if they are located underneath the vehicle floor and are provided with a locking mechanism, or require the use of tools to separate the connector, or the voltage reduces to below 30 VAC or 60 VDC within one second after the connector is separated.
In the NPRM, NHTSA expressed disagreement with the GTR's exclusion of connectors under the floor. (
The agency received several comments on this issue. The Alliance and Global request the regulatory text include a separate section setting forth direct contact protection requirements that connectors and the vehicle charge inlet must meet. The Alliance suggests the following definition for “connector”: “A connector is a device that provides mechanical connection and disconnection of high voltage electrical conductors to a suitable mating component, including its housing.”
The Alliance and Global suggest that the separate section specify that connectors and the vehicle charge inlet must provide protection degree IPXXD or IPXXB, as appropriate, when connected to its mating component. Further, each connector or vehicle charge inlet must also meet one of the following: (1) It must provide, in an uncoupled state, protection degree IPXXD or IPXXB, as appropriate, if the connector or vehicle charge inlet can be uncoupled from its mating component without a tool; (2) the voltage of the live parts become equal to or less than 60 VDC or 30 VAC within 1 second after separating from its mating component; or (3) it has a locking mechanism that prevents the connector or vehicle charge inlet from being uncoupled from its mating component without a tool.
In its comment, Tesla asks NHTSA to confirm whether various scenarios involving its connectors underneath the floor of its vehicles would meet the proposed requirements.
NHTSA has reviewed the comments and agrees with the recommendations to include separate requirements for direct contact protection of connectors and vehicle charge inlets. In drafting the NPRM, we determined that connectors were high voltage sources and that they should meet all the requirements for high voltage sources. However, the commenters provide more information about connectors, pointing out that they connect high voltage cables to high voltage sources through a mating component. Like high voltage conductors (cables), connectors need to have direct contact protection. But, commenters point out, connectors are unique in that they are designed to be disconnected from their mating component. Therefore, additional safety provisions are required to ensure the safety of this coupling and re-coupling design mechanism. For this reason, we have decided there is a need to specify unique safety provisions for connectors and vehicle charge inlets.
We have based our final rule on the requirements suggested by the Alliance and Global. The requirements are harmonized with GTR No. 13, ECE R.100, and the draft EVS-GTR for electric vehicles. When a connector is connected to its mating component, it should have direct contact protection IPXXD or IPXXB based on whether the connector is inside or outside the passenger or luggage compartment, respectively. Additionally, connectors are required to meet at least one of the three following requirements: (1) It must provide protection degree IPXXD or IPXXB, as appropriate, in the uncoupled state, if the connector or vehicle charge inlet can be uncoupled from its mating component without a tool; (2) the voltage of the high voltage live parts become equal to or less than 60 VDC or 30 VAC within 1 second after separating from its mating component; or (3) it has a locking mechanism (at least two distinct actions are needed to separate the connector from its mating component)
Regarding Tesla's recommendation that we incorporate Table 4 of ISO 6469-3 for connectors, we believe there is no need for such an amendment. ISO 6469-3 was revised in 2011 and its requirements for connectors are similar to those in this final rule.
Regarding Tesla's inquiry about connectors underneath the floor, connectors and electrical protection barriers located under the vehicle's floor are treated the same as other connectors and electrical protection barriers located outside of the passenger and luggage compartments.
NHTSA proposed marking requirements (yellow high voltage symbol) on or near electric energy storage/conversion devices, and on electrical protection barriers in general. We proposed that the markings would not be required for electrical protection barriers that cannot be physically accessed, opened, or removed without the use of tools. The proposed provisions were based on GTR No. 13 requirements, but unlike GTR No. 13, the NPRM did not exclude from the marking requirement (1) electrical protection barriers or high voltage sources located under the vehicle floor; (2) connectors generally; or (3) the vehicle charge inlet. NHTSA also proposed that cables for high voltage sources that are not located within electrical protection barriers must be identified by an orange colored outer covering.
The agency received multiple comments on this issue.
The Alliance, Global and Subaru request that connectors be excluded from the marking requirement. The Alliance and Global state that some connectors can be so small that the markings on these connectors would be not easily read and that high voltage cables going into the connectors are required to have orange outer covers, which should signal that the cables and their connectors are high voltage. The Alliance also notes that high voltage connectors do not necessarily carry high current. The Alliance states that the inclusion of a marking requirement for connecters would necessitate product development efforts, increased economic cost and compliance burden, without a commensurate increase in safety.
Subaru believes that markings should not be necessary on or near electric storage/conversion devices which are not in plain view of vehicle occupants during normal vehicle operation. Subaru states that a device that is mounted under a seat, and that is not visible without first removing the seat, should not have to be marked.
Tesla believes that high voltage sources underneath the vehicle are subject to a harsh physical environment, and that the markings on them are not likely to survive the vehicle's life. Tesla asks NHTSA to allow for alternative placement of high voltage markings when a vehicle's high voltage source is located under the vehicle's floor.
The agency agrees with the Alliance and Global request to exclude connectors from requiring markings. The agency is persuaded by the commenters that connectors do not necessarily carry high current and that the increased economic cost and compliance burden resulting from a marking requirement are not warranted. The connectors are small, so markings on them would not be easily read. Further, we agree that since high voltage cables going into the connectors are required to have orange outer covers, those covers will sufficiently indicate that the cables and their connectors are high voltage. Importantly, the markings are also not needed because, in a change from the NPRM, we have decided to require connectors to have direct contact protection when connected and disconnected from their mating component. (As discussed above, the direct contact protection consists of IPXXD or IPXXB protection when connected to the mating component, and at least one of the following: (1) IPXXD or IPXXB protection when separated from its mating component if the connector can be uncoupled without a tool; (2) a low voltage requirement within 1 second after separation from its mating component; or (3) it cannot be uncoupled from its mating component without the use of tools. Thus, we conclude that connectors will sufficiently protect against the risk of electrical shock without the markings.
Similarly, the agency also agrees with the Alliance and Global request to exclude the vehicle charge inlet from requiring markings. The markings are not necessary because this final rule requires vehicle charge inlets to have direct contact protection when connected and disconnected from their mating component, like connectors.
The agency does not agree with Subaru's request to omit the high voltage marking on electric energy storage/conversion
Thus, under this final rule, the electric energy storage device must be marked, and the electrical protection barrier for the device must also be marked with a visible high voltage symbol if it can be accessed, opened, and removed without the use of tools. To illustrate, if an electric energy storage device is accessible when the floor mat is pulled out and a floor panel is opened (without the use of tools), the floor panel has to have a high voltage symbol that is visible to the person when he/she pulls out the floor mat.
NHTSA has decided not to require electric energy conversion devices to be marked with the high voltage symbol. Electric energy conversion devices include fuel cells which convert chemical energy to electric energy. A fuel cell only becomes a high voltage source when hydrogen is supplied to it. Since conversion devices (
NHTSA does not agree with Tesla's request to allow alternative positions for the high voltage symbol mark on high voltage sources that are located underneath the vehicle's floor. We do not believe there is a need for the change as the regulatory text requires that the mark be “on or near” electric energy storage devices without providing specifics for the location of the high voltage marking. We note also that this final rule provides that electrical protection barriers that cannot be physically accessed, opened, or removed without the use of tools are excluded from the marking requirement,
Exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers must be protected against indirect contact
Global comments that the reference to “any two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts” in proposed S5.3(c)(2) “would result in excessive testing requirements, due to the number of potential combinations of two simultaneously reachable exposed parts.” The commenter recommends that manufacturers be authorized to identify a “worst case” pair of conductive parts for testing under the provision to reduce the potential number of combinations. Global also recommends that greater specification for the phrase “any two simultaneously reachable,” be provided, such as a measured distance.
NHTSA believes that the regulatory text already provides the specification that the simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers must be located within 2.5 meters of each other. Thus, we do not believe the requirement results in an excessive number of resistance measurements. However, NHTSA is correcting the reference to “exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barriers” in S5.3(c)(2) to qualify that they are exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier of the high voltage source under consideration in S5.3.
Global comments that the low voltage requirement (S5.3(c)(3)) is too broad in scope and recommends limiting this testing requirement to exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barriers. Global states that in the event of a barrier failure, a voltage differential could exist with regard to all exposed conductive parts of the chassis and all metal parts connected to the chassis. The Alliance comments that the requirements in S5.3(c)(3) should be consistent with the requirement in S5.3(c)(2). I.e., the Alliance believes that the voltage measurements for S5.3(c)(3) between exposed conductive parts should be made on the same exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers for which resistance measurements are made for S5.3(c)(2).
The agency agrees with the comments of Global and the Alliance and has worded S5.3(c)(3) to reflect the recommended changes. As adopted, S5.3(c)(3) specifies that the voltage between exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier and the electrical chassis must be less than or equal to 30 VAC or 60 VDC.
Under FMVSS No. 305's current post-crash safety requirements, vehicles must meet either electrical isolation requirements or low voltage requirements. The current requirements for electrical isolation are that the electrical isolation of the high voltage source must be greater than or equal to: 500 ohms/volt for an AC high voltage source; 500 ohms/volt for a DC high voltage source without electrical isolation monitoring during vehicle operation; or 100 ohms/volt for a DC high voltage source with an electrical isolation monitoring system during vehicle operation.
The NPRM proposed to change these requirements (S5.3(a)) and add specifications that high voltage sources must have electrical isolation during normal vehicle operation (S5.4.3.1). Briefly, the proposed electrical isolation requirements are: AC high voltage sources have 500 ohms/volt or higher electrical isolation from the electric chassis; DC high voltage sources have 100 ohms/volt or higher electric isolation from the electric chassis; or, AC high voltage sources that are conductively connected to the DC high voltage sources may have 100 ohms/volt or higher electrical isolation from the electric chassis provided they also provide physical barrier protection.
The Alliance first requests that the regulatory text of the electrical isolation option under post-crash conditions (S5.3(a)) and during normal vehicle operating conditions (S5.4.3.1) be replaced by the language in GTR No. 13.
The agency declines this request. The requirements of the electrical isolation option in FMVSS No. 305 and GTR No. 13 are identical, while the text in FMVSS No. 305 is more concise.
Second, the Alliance requests changes to the proposed physical barrier protection requirements for AC high voltage sources that are conductively connected to DC high voltage sources and that comply with the lower electrical isolation limit of 100 ohms/volt under post-crash conditions (S5.3(a)(2)). The proposed text in the NPRM permits an AC high voltage source to have an isolation resistance of only 100 ohms/volt if three physical protection requirements are met.
NHTSA has carefully analyzed electrical safety implications under the conditions of a minimum electrical isolation of 100 ohms/volt, resistance between exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers and the chassis of 0.1 ohms, and electrical isolation between two exposed conductive parts of 0.2 ohms. The results of the analysis
Like GTR No. 13, the NPRM proposed (S5.4.5) to require electric vehicles whose rechargeable energy storage system are charged by conductively connecting to a grounded external power supply to have a device to enable conductive connection of the electrical chassis to the earth ground during charging. This proposal was to ensure that in the event of electrical isolation loss during charging, a person contacting the vehicle does not form a ground loop with the chassis and sustain significant electric shock. Additionally, like GTR No. 13, the NPRM proposed (S5.4.3.3) to require the isolation resistance between the high voltage source and the electrical chassis to be at least 1 million ohms when the charge coupler is disconnected. This proposal was to ensure that the magnitude of current through a human body when a person contacts a vehicle undergoing charging is low and in the safe zone.
The agency received many comments regarding the requirement for isolation resistance of 1 million ohms during charging.
The Alliance states that the requirement should only be applicable to conductive charging with an AC external electric power supply, noting that the isolation resistance of one million ohms should be required for the high voltage source (high voltage buses) that are conductively connected to the contacts of the vehicle charge inlet, and not to the vehicle charge inlet itself.
Mercedes-Benz states that the 1 million ohms isolation resistance specification—
is intended as a system reliability requirement, not a safety requirement. The safety relevant requirements on an isolation resistance are already specified in S5.4.3.1. . . . [T]he regulatory text [should] explicitly remove the `one million ohm' specification and instead state that the isolation resistance, measured at the vehicle charge inlet, must comply with the requirements stated in S5.4.3.1.
Tesla states that it does not believe the insulation resistance requirement for the vehicle's inlet is aligned with the associated high voltage hazards that the NPRM proposes to mitigate. Tesla believes that the intent of the insulation resistance requirement is to prevent high voltage current from flowing through the human body. Tesla believes that Section 11.7 of the IEC 61851-1:2010
To evaluate these comments, NHTSA requested information from technical experts in the working group for the draft EVS-GTR on electric vehicle safety, in which NHTSA participates. Technical information was provided by Mr. Takahiko Miki
Mr. Miki provided the following detailed explanation of protective measures in vehicles during charging to prevent electric shock. Mr. Miki noted that protection against electric shock during charging by connecting to an AC external electric power supply is provided by the vehicle and the off-board electric vehicle supply equipment (
The AC external electric power supply is grounded to earth ground. When an electric vehicle is connected to the AC external electric power supply by the charge connector, the vehicle electrical chassis is connected to the earth/ground through the earthing/grounding conductor. If electrical isolation/insulation is lost during charging, the leakage current (residual current)
The electrical isolation of high voltage sources that are connected to the vehicle charge inlet during charging by connecting the AC external electric power supply is determined based on the characteristics of the RCD/CCID to ensure that leakage current would be significantly lower than the leakage current level that would trip the RCD/CCID to open the circuit. This electrical isolation requirement is not for electric shock protection but to ensure that charging is not interrupted under normal charging conditions. Mr. Miki recommends that the electrical isolation between the electrical chassis and high voltage sources that are conductively connected to the vehicle charge inlet during AC charging be greater than or equal to 500 ohms/volt because with this level of electrical isolation, the leakage current would be sufficiently lower than the leakage (residual) current level that would trip the RCD/CCID to open the circuit and interrupt the electric energy supply.
In light of the new information provided by Mr. Miki and the commenters, the agency is modifying the proposed isolation resistance requirement for high voltage sources for charging the electric energy storage device (S5.4.3.3). High voltage sources conductively connected to the vehicle charge inlet during charging (through conductive connection to the AC external electric supply) are required to have electrical isolation from the electric chassis of 500 ohms/volt when the charge connector is disconnected.
We believe the modified language responds to the comments from the Alliance, Mercedes-Benz, and Tesla. Additionally, the modified requirement is consistent with that developed in the draft EVS-GTR for electric vehicles.
Regarding Tesla's recommendation for NHTSA to provide clear requirements for off-board (including charging) equipment, the agency is looking into this matter. The safety measures in the electric vehicle supply equipment, such as the RCD/CCID in the charge connector, are specified in the National Electric Code (NEC)—Article 625: Electric Vehicle Charging System and in the Underwriters Laboratory (UL) 2954, “Electric vehicle supply equipment.” Adding requirements for off-board equipment is not in scope of this final rule since the agency did not include any such requirements in the NPRM. The agency may consider the need for and the feasibility of requirements for off-board electric vehicle equipment in the future.
NHTSA proposed three provisions for mitigating the likelihood of driver error in operating electric vehicles (S5.4.6). First, the heading and text of proposed S5.4.6.1 proposed that at least a momentary indication shall be given at “start up” when the vehicle is in a possible active driving mode.
The agency received comments from Global, the Alliance and Tesla on the proposal. Global requests a clarification of the meaning of “start up” used in the first provision. Global asks if “start up” refers to the time of engine start or some other meaning.
NHTSA meant “start up” to refer to the time when the vehicle is first placed in a possible active driving mode (
The Alliance believes the heading of the third provision for mitigating driver error should be revised from “Prevent drive-away during charging” to “Prevent drive-away” to reflect that the concern is that the driver may drive the vehicle away after charging is
The agency agrees generally with the Alliance's recommended changes and has changed the proposed regulatory text. We believe the changes improve clarity and removes ambiguity about when and under what conditions the requirement to prevent vehicle movement applies.
Tesla states that the phrase, “preventing physical vehicle movement by its own power,” is vague and needs clarification. Tesla requests that the agency draw a clear distinction between when a vehicle is considered stationary and when it is in “movement under its own power.” The commenter suggests using a provision in FMVSS No. 114, “Theft protection and rollaway prevention.” S5.2.5 of FMVSS No. 114 specifies that a vehicle must not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade when the gear selection control is locked in “park.”
The agency sees merit in Tesla's suggestion to improve objectivity of the requirement for preventing vehicle movement when the charge connector is connected to the vehicle charge inlet. S5.2 in FMVSS No. 114 specifies provisions to prevent rollaway in vehicles equipped with a transmission with a “park” position. One provision is that when the vehicle is resting on a 10 percent grade and the vehicle's gear selection control is locked in “park,” the vehicle must not move more than 150 mm when the brakes are released. To distinguish minor vibrations of the vehicle when it is idling from vehicle movement “under its own power,” the agency is modifying the proposed regulatory text to state that the vehicle must not move more than 150 mm
The NPRM proposed test procedures for evaluating IPXXB and IPXXD direct contact protection (S9.1), measuring resistance between exposed conductive parts and between an exposed conductive part and the electrical chassis to evaluate indirect contact protection (S9.2), and measuring voltage between exposed conductive part of an electrical protection barrier and the electrical chassis or any other exposed conductive part of the vehicle for indirect contact protection (S9.3).
For evaluating direct contact protection, the proposed test procedure in S9.1 detailed how the IPXXB and IPXXD probes are used and manipulated to determine if high voltage live parts are contacted. Subaru comments that the description of manipulating the IPXXB finger probe does not specifically note that it is only applicable to the IPXXB probe and not the IPXXD probe. NHTSA agrees and has corrected this omission to indicate that the described manipulation of the finger probe only applies to the IPXXB probe.
In proposed S9.1 the NPRM did not explicitly provide criteria for assessing whether high voltage live parts were contacted, though such information is provided in GTR No. 13. To make S9.1 clearer, and to better harmonize the test procedure in FMVSS No. 305 with that in GTR No. 13, the criteria for verification of IPXXD and IPXXB protection degree in GTR No. 13 are included in the regulatory text.
For measuring resistance between two exposed conductive parts, the NPRM at S9.2 provided two methods that could be used. Global states that the two methods were provided in GTR No. 13 as compliance options for manufacturers to select for evaluating indirect contact protection. The commenter recommends we include regulatory text to make clear that it is at the manufacturer's option to choose either test method to certify compliance. The agency agrees that the two methods were provided as compliance test options for manufacturers and has included the recommended regulatory text in S9.2 of FMVSS No.305.
Global expresses concern that provisions for indirect contact protection in S9.2 create an inordinate certification burden on manufacturers due to the phrase, “any two exposed conductive parts.” The commenter requests that instead of measuring the resistance between two exposed conductive parts, resistance may be calculated using the separately measured resistances of the parts of the electrical chassis.
NHTSA agrees with this requested change from Global. The agency notes that GTR No. 13, ECE R.100, and the draft EVS-GTR permit resistances to be calculated using the separately measured resistances of the relevant parts in the electric path. NHTSA believes that a calculation option is acceptable for the requirement at issue because resistances can be computed from other measured resistances on an actual vehicle in a straightforward manner, and do not involve potentially subjective judgment calls on the part of evaluators as to whether assumptions underlying a calculation are merited.
For measuring voltage between exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers, the NPRM specified a method in which the DC power supply, voltmeter, and ammeter are connected between measuring points. The Alliance and Global point out that the DC power supply should not be connected in this test (S9.3a). The agency agrees and has corrected the regulatory text. Additionally, NHTSA believes that calculating the voltage between two exposed conductive parts from the measured voltages between the exposed conductive parts and the electrical chassis is straightforward and unambiguous and so is permitting a calculation option for determining voltage between exposed conductive parts.
The proposal provided specifications of the IPXXB probe in Figure 7b of the regulatory text. The Alliance and Global note errors in the specification for R2 and R4. The agency has corrected the errors in Figure 7b.
The Alliance and Global provide an improved Figure 8 in which the text is clearer than the NPRM's Figure 8. The agency has included the new figure in FMVSS No. 305.
The NPRM proposed a compliance date of 180 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the
The Alliance states that, although the proposed amendments to FMVSS No. 305 are vital to enable the production of advanced fuel cell and 48-volt mild hybrid vehicles, the “in use” requirements may require some modification of currently-certified electric vehicles. The commenter asks that the compliance date be modified to align it with the first September 1st that is at least 180 days after the publication of the final rule in the
The agency believes that most, if not all, electric-powered vehicles currently sold in the United States would be able to comply with the updated requirements in FMVSS No. 305 by the proposed compliance date. However, as noted by the Alliance, some vehicles may need some minor modifications to comply with some of the modifications in FMVSS No. 305, such as the marking requirements. Therefore, the agency finds good cause to provide more time to comply with this final rule. The agency believes one year from the date of publication of the final rule is sufficient time for vehicle manufacturers to comply with the updated FMVSS No. 305 requirements. Therefore, the compliance date for the amendments in FMVSS No 305 is one year after publication of the final rule. We permit optional early compliance with this final rule.
We note that in the “DATES” section at this beginning of this document NHTSA indicates that the “effective date” of this final rule is the date of publication of the rule. The “effective date” in the
This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The amendments made by this final rule will have no significant effect on the national economy, as most of the requirements are already in voluntary industry standards and international standards that current electric powered vehicles presently meet.
This final rule updates FMVSS No. 305 to incorporate the electrical safety requirements in GTR No. 13. This final rule also responds to petitions for rulemaking from Toyota and the Alliance to facilitate the introduction of fuel cell vehicles and 48-volt mild hybrid technologies into the vehicle fleet. The final rule adds electrical safety requirements in GTR No. 13 that involve electrical isolation and direct and indirect contact protection of high voltage sources to prevent electric shock during normal operation of electric powered vehicles. Today's final rule also provides an additional optional method of meeting post-crash electrical safety requirements that involve physical barriers of high voltage sources to prevent electric shock due to direct and indirect contact with live parts. Since there is widespread conformance with the requirements that would apply to existing vehicles, we anticipate no costs or benefits associated with this rulemaking.
Executive Order 13771 titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” are subject to these requirements. As discussed above, this rule is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866 and, accordingly, is not subject to the offset requirements of 13771.
NHTSA has determined that this rulemaking is a deregulatory action under E.O. 13771, as it imposes no costs and, instead, amends FMVSS No. 305 to give more flexibility to manufacturers not only to use modern electrical safety designs to produce electric vehicles, but also to introduce new technologies to the U.S. market, including hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and 48-volt mild hybrid technologies. Although NHTSA was not able to quantify any cost savings for this rule, in adopting an optional method of meeting post-crash electrical safety requirements involving use of physical barriers to prevent direct or indirect contact (by occupants, emergency services personnel and others) with high voltage sources, this final rule adjusts the standard to remove an obstruction that prevented HFCVs to be offered for sale in the U.S. Use of the physical barrier option will also enable manufacturers to produce 48-volt mild hybrid systems without having to use electrical isolation safety measures that involve more complexity, higher consumer costs, and higher mass, without an incremental safety benefit.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule does 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.”
NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or
It is this statutory command that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law
Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law. That possibility is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between a FMVSS and the State requirement. If and when such a conflict exists, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State requirements unenforceable. See
NHTSA has considered the nature (
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.
Please note that anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There are no information collection requirements associated with this NPRM.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, as amended by Public Law 107-107 (15 U.S.C. 272), directs the agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
FMVSS No. 305 has historically drawn largely from SAE J1766, and does so again for this current rulemaking, which updates FMVSS No. 305 to facilitate the development of fuel cell and 48-volt mild hybrid technologies. It is based on GTR No. 13 and the latest version of SAE J1766 January 2014.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2013 results in $142 million (106.733/75.324 = 1.42). This final rule will not result in a cost of $142 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides, in part: the regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
The agency participated in the development of GTR No. 13 to harmonize the standards of fuel cell vehicles. As a signatory member, NHTSA is obligated to initiate rulemaking to incorporate electrical safety requirements and options specified in GTR No. 13 into FMVSS No. 305. The agency has initiated rulemaking by way of the March 10, 2016 NPRM and completes it with this final rule.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us with your views.
Imports, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
S1.
S2.
S4. * * *
S5.3
(a) The electrical isolation of the high voltage source, determined in accordance with the procedure specified in S7.6, must be greater than or equal to one of the following:
(1) 500 ohms/volt for an AC high voltage source; or
(2) 100 ohms/volt for an AC high voltage source if it is conductively connected to a DC high voltage source, but only if the AC high voltage source meets the physical barrier protection requirements specified in S5.3(c)(1) and S5.3(c)(2); or
(3) 100 ohms/volt for a DC high voltage source.
(b) The voltages V1, V2, and Vb of the high voltage source, measured according to the procedure specified in S7.7, must be less than or equal to 30 VAC for AC components or 60 VDC for DC components.
(c) Protection against electric shock by direct and indirect contact (physical barrier protection) shall be demonstrated by meeting the following three conditions:
(1) The high voltage source (AC or DC) meets the protection degree IPXXB when tested according to the procedure specified in S9.1 using the IPXXB test probe shown in Figures 7a and 7b;
(2) The resistance between exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier of the high voltage source and the electrical chassis is less than 0.1 ohms when tested according to the procedures specified in S9.2. In addition, the resistance between an exposed conductive part of the electrical protection barrier of the high voltage source and any other simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers within 2.5 meters of it must be less than 0.2 ohms when tested using the test procedures specified in S9.2; and
(3) The voltage between exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier of the high voltage source and the electrical chassis is less than or equal to 30 VAC or 60 VDC as measured in accordance with S9.3. In addition, the voltage between an exposed conductive part of the electrical protection barrier of the high voltage source and any other simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers within 2.5 meters of it must be less than or equal to 30 VAC or 60 VDC as measured in accordance with S9.3.
S5.4
S5.4.1
S5.4.1.1
S5.4.1.1.1 The marking is not required for electrical protection barriers that cannot be physically accessed, opened, or removed without the use of tools. Markings are not required for electrical connectors or the vehicle charge inlet.
S5.4.1.2
S5.4.1.3
S5.4.1.4
(a) Protection degree IPXXD shall be provided for high voltage live parts inside the passenger or luggage compartment when tested according to the procedures specified in S9.1 using the IPXXD test probe shown in Figure 7a.
(b) Protection degree IPXXB shall be provided for high voltage live parts in areas other than the passenger or luggage compartment when tested according to the procedures specified in S9.1 using the IPXXB test probe shown in Figures 7a and 7b.
S5.4.1.5
(a) The connector meets the requirements of S5.4.1.4 when separated from its mating component, if the connector can be separated without the use of tools;
(b) The voltage of the live parts becomes less than or equal to 60 VDC or 30 VAC within one second after the connector is separated from its mating component; or,
(c) The connector is provided with a locking mechanism (at least two distinct actions are needed to separate the connector from its mating component) and there are other components that must be removed in order to separate the connector from its mating component and these cannot be removed without the use of tools.
S5.4.1.6
(a) The vehicle charge inlet meets the requirements of S5.4.1.4 when the charge connector is not connected to it; or
(b) The voltage of the high voltage live parts becomes equal to or less than 60 VDC or equal to or less than 30 VAC within 1 second after the charge connector is separated from the vehicle charge inlet.
S5.4.2
S5.4.2.1 The resistance between all exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers and the electrical chassis shall be less than 0.1 ohms when tested according to the procedures specified in S9.2.
S5.4.2.2 The resistance between any two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other shall be less than 0.2 ohms when tested according to the procedures specified in S9.2.
S5.4.3
S5.4.3.1
(a) 500 ohms/volt for an AC high voltage source;
(b) 100 ohms/volt for an AC high voltage source if it is conductively connected to a DC high voltage source, but only if the AC high voltage source meets the requirements for protection against direct contact in S5.4.1.4 and the protection from indirect contact in S5.4.2; or
(c) 100 ohms/volt for a DC high voltage source.
S5.4.3.2
S5.4.3.3
S5.4.4
S5.4.5
S5.4.6
S5.4.6.1
S5.4.6.2
S5.4.6.3
S9
S9.1
(a) Any parts surrounding the high voltage components are opened, disassembled, or removed without the use of tools.
(b) The selected access probe is inserted into any gaps or openings of the electrical protection barrier with a test force of 10 N ± 1 N with the IPXXB probe or 1 to 2 N with the IPXXD probe. If the probe partly or fully penetrates into the electrical protection barrier, it is placed in every possible position to evaluate contact with high voltage live parts. If partial or full penetration into the electrical protection barrier occurs with the IPXXB probe, the IPXXB probe shall be placed as follows: starting from the straight position, both joints of the test finger are rotated progressively through an angle of up to 90 degrees with respect to the axis of the adjoining section of the test finger and are placed in every possible position.
(c) A low voltage supply (of not less than 40 V and not more than 50 V) in series with a suitable lamp may be connected between the access probe and any high voltage live parts inside the electrical protection barrier to indicate whether high voltage live parts were contacted.
(d) A mirror or fiberscope may be used to inspect whether the access probe touches high voltage live parts inside the electrical protection barrier.
(e) Protection degree IPXXD or IPXXB is verified when the following conditions are met:
(i) The access probe does not touch high voltage live parts. The IPXXB access probe may be manipulated as specified in S9.1(b) for evaluating contact with high voltage live parts. The methods specified in S9.1(c) or S9.1(d) may be used to aid the evaluation. If method S9.1(c) is used for verifying protection degree IPXXB or IPXXD, the lamp shall not light up.
(ii) The stop face of the access probe does not fully penetrate into the electrical protection barrier.
S9.2
(a)
(b)
(1) Connect the DC power supply, voltmeter and ammeter to the measuring points (the electrical chassis and any exposed conductive part or any two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts that are less than 2.5 meters from each other) as shown in Figure 8.
(2) Adjust the voltage of the DC power supply so that the current flow becomes more than 0.2 Amperes.
(3) Measure the current I and the voltage V shown in Figure 8.
(4) Calculate the resistance R according to the formula, R=V/I.
(5) The resistance between two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other may be calculated using the separately measured resistances of the relevant parts of the electric path.
S9.3
(a) Connect the voltmeter to the measuring points (exposed conductive part of an electrical protection barrier and the electrical chassis or any two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other).
(b) Measure the voltage.
(c) The voltage between two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other may be calculated using the separately measured voltages between the relevant electrical protection barriers and the electrical chassis.
Agricultural Marketing Service.
Proposed rule.
This proposal invites comments on realigning the production districts under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan (Plan) for producer and handler membership on the National Watermelon Promotion Board (Board), and adding four importer seats to the Board. The Board administers the Plan with oversight by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These changes were recommended by the Board after a review of the production volume in each district as well as assessments paid by importers. This action is necessary to provide for the equitable representation of producers, handlers and importers on the Board. The Plan requires that such a review be conducted every 5 years. This action would increase the number of importer seats from 8 to 12, thereby increasing the number of Board members from 37 to a total of 41: 14 producers, 14 handlers, 12 importers, and one public member.
Comments must be received by October 27, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments may be submitted on the internet at:
Stacy Jones King, Agricultural Marketing Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (202) 731-2117; facsimile: (202) 205-2800; or electronic mail:
This proposed rule is issued under the Plan (7 CFR part 1210). The Plan is authorized under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act (Act) (7 U.S.C. 4901-4916).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771.
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.
In addition, this proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. The Act provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other State or Federal law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.
Under section 1650 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 4909), a person may file a written petition with USDA if they believe that the Plan, any provision of the Plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Plan, is not in accordance with the law. In any petition, the person may request a modification of the Plan or an exemption from the Plan. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Afterwards, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will issue a decision. If the petitioner disagrees with the ALJ's ruling, the petitioner has 30 days to appeal to the Judicial Officer, who will issue a ruling on behalf of USDA. If the petitioner disagrees with USDA's ruling, the petitioner may file, within 20 days, an appeal in the U.S. District Court for the district where the petitioner resides or conducts business.
Under the Plan, the Board administers a nationally coordinated program of research, development, advertising and promotion designed to strengthen the watermelon's position in the market place and to establish, maintain, and expand markets for watermelons. The program is financed by assessments on producers growing 10 acres or more of watermelons, handlers of watermelons, and importers of 150,000 pounds of watermelons or more per year. The Plan specifies that handlers are responsible for collecting and submitting both the producer and handler assessments to the Board, reporting their handling of watermelons, and maintaining records necessary to verify their reporting(s). Importers are responsible for payment of assessments to the Board on watermelons imported into the United States through U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs).
This proposal invites comments on realigning the production districts under the Plan for producer and handler membership on the Board, and adding
Section 1210.320(a) of the Plan specifies that the Board shall be composed of producers, handlers, importers and one public representative appointed by the Secretary. Under the Plan, pursuant to section 1210.320(b), the United States is divided into seven districts of comparable production volumes of watermelons, and each district is allocated two producer members and two handler members. Section 1210.320(d) specifies that importer representation on the Board shall be proportionate to the percentage of assessments paid by importers to the Board, except that at least one representative of importers shall serve on the Board.
The current Board is composed of 37 members—14 producers (one from each district), 14 handlers (one from each district), 8 importers and one public member.
Section 1210.320(c) requires the Board, at least every 5 years, to review the districts to determine whether realignment is necessary. In conducting the review, the Board must consider: (1) The most recent 3 years of USDA production reports or Board assessment reports if USDA production reports are not available; (2) shifts and trends in quantities of watermelon produced, and (3) other relevant factors. As a result of the review, the Board may recommend to USDA that the districts be realigned.
Pursuant to section 1210.501 of the Plan's rules and regulations, the seven current districts are as follows:
The districts listed above were recommended by the Board in 2010 and established through rulemaking by USDA in 2011 (76 FR 42009; July 18, 2011).
The Board appointed a subcommittee in 2016 to conduct a review of the seven U.S. watermelon production districts to determine whether realignment was necessary. The subcommittee held a teleconference on July 27, 2016, and reviewed production data for 2013, 2014 and 2015 from USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service's (NASS) Vegetables Annual Summary for 2015.
The subcommittee considered three scenarios in realigning the districts. All three scenarios would consolidate the State of Florida into District 1 and would make no changes to Districts 3 (Georgia), 5 (California), and 6 (Texas). Two of the scenarios would have moved the States of North and South Carolina into one district—District 2. Ultimately the subcommittee proposed the following changes: (1) Consolidating the State of Florida into one district by moving the Florida counties of Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Marion, Nassau, Okaloosa, Putnam, Santa Rosa, St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington from District 2 to District 1; (2) moving the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia from District 4 to District 2; and (3) moving the State of Alabama from District 4 to District 7. As shown in Table 2, under the realignment, each district would represent, on average, 14 percent of the total U.S. production based on NASS data, with a range of 11 to 17 percent.
Upon review
Additionally, USDA has reviewed the NASS report that was issued in February 2017.
Section 1210.501 of the Plan's rules and regulations would be revised accordingly.
Section 1210.320(e) of the Plan requires USDA to evaluate the average annual percentage of assessments paid by importers during the 3-year period preceding the date of the evaluation and adjust, to the extent practicable, the number of importer representatives on the Board.
Table 4 below shows domestic and import assessment data for watermelons for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. The data is from the Board's financial audits for 2013, 2014
Based on this data, the three-year average annual import assessments for watermelons for 2013-2015 totaled $1,029,030, approximately 34 percent of the Board's assessment income. Thus, increasing the number of importers on the Board from 8 to 14 members would reflect that almost 34 percent of the assessments were paid by importers over the 3-year period. However, due to the difficulty the Board has had in finding individuals that are both eligible and willing to serve in the current eight importer seats, it will likely be very challenging to fill six additional importer seats. Furthermore, under the nomination rules of the Plan, the Board would need to recommend to the Secretary at least two importers for each open seat, which would mean that 12 eligible and willing importers would have to be secured. For these reasons, the Board recommended only adding four importer seats (representing 30 percent of the total industry members) to ensure that it would have a sufficient number of potential nominees. The Board subsequently recommended through the July 2016 mail vote increasing the number of importer seats from 8 to 12, thereby increasing the number of Board members from 37 to a total of 41: 14 producers, 14 handlers, 12 importers, and one public member. Importers would represent 30 percent of the Board's 40 industry members. (Importers (8) represent about 22 percent of the current Board's 36 industry members.)
Section 1210.502 of the Plan's rules and regulations would be revised accordingly.
If this proposed rule becomes final, nominations would be held as soon as possible to fill the four new importer seats.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS is required to examine the economic impact of this proposed rule on the small entities. Accordingly, AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on such entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (handlers and importers) as those having annual receipts of no more than $7.5 million.
According to the Board, there are 1,251 producers, 147 handlers, and 365 importers who are required to pay assessments under the program. NASS data for the 2016 crop year estimated about 354 hundredweight (cwt.) of watermelons were produced per acre in the United States, and the 2016 grower price was $14.40 per cwt.
Also based on the Board's data, using an average freight on board (f.o.b.) price of $0.186 per pound and the number of pounds handled annually, none of the watermelon handlers have receipts over the $7.5 million threshold.
Based on 2016 Customs data, over 90 percent of watermelon importers shipped under $7.5 million worth of watermelons. Based on the foregoing, the majority of the producers, handlers and importers that would be affected by this proposed rule would be classified as small entities.
Regarding the value of the commodity, based on 2016 NASS data, the value of the U.S. watermelon crop was about $578 million.
This proposal invites comments on revising sections 1210.501 and 1210.502 of the Plan's rules and regulations, respectively, to change the boundaries of four of the seven U.S. production districts and to add four importers to the Board, increasing the size of the Board from 37 to 41 members. The Board administers the Plan with oversight by USDA.
Under the Plan, the United States is divided into seven districts of comparable production volumes of watermelons, and each district is allocated two producer members and two handler members. Further, importer representation on the Board must be, to the extent practicable, proportionate to the percentage of assessments paid by importers, except there must be at least one importer on the Board.
Every 5 years, the Board is required to evaluate, based on the preceding 3-year period, the average production in each production district and the average annual percentage of assessments paid by importers. The Board conducted this review in 2016 and recommended
Regarding the economic impact of the proposed rule on affected entities, neither the realignment of production districts nor the expansion of Board membership imposes additional costs on industry members. Eligible importers interested in serving on the Board would have to complete a background questionnaire. Those requirements are addressed in the section titled
Regarding alternatives, the Board considered three scenarios in realigning the districts. All three scenarios would consolidate the State of Florida in District 1 and would make no changes to Districts 3 (Georgia), 5 (California), and 6 (Texas). Two of the scenarios would have moved the States of North and South Carolina into one district—District 2. Ultimately the Board recommended consolidating the State of Florida into one district (District 1), moving the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia from District 4 to District 2; and moving the State of Alabama from District 4 to District 7. The Board recommended the alignment scenario described in this proposed rule because it: (1) Would provide for a proportional geographical representation on the Board for producers and handlers; (2) would not create any producer or handler vacancies on the Board; and (3) would streamline the nomination process for District 1 by condensing all the Florida counties into a single district. The Board's recommendation is consistent with the 2011 realignment that kept States (except Florida) together.
Regarding alternatives for importer representation, as stated previously, the three-year average annual imports for watermelon totals $1,029,030. This represents almost 34 percent of the total assessments paid to the Board. One alternative would be to add five or six importer seats (representing 33 and 35 percent, respectively, of the Board's 40 industry members), so that importer representation would be proportionate to the percentage of importer assessments paid. However, due to the difficulty the Board has had in finding individuals that are both eligible and willing to serve in the current eight importer seats, it will likely be very challenging to fill six additional importer seats. Furthermore, under the nomination rules of the Plan, the Board would need to recommend to the Secretary at least two importers for each open seat, which would mean that 12 eligible and willing importers would have to be secured. For these reasons, the Board recommended only adding four importer seats (representing 30 percent of the total industry members) to ensure that it would have a sufficient number of potential nominees. This is consistent with section 1210.320(e) of the Plan which prescribes that the number of importer seats should be adjusted, to the extent practicable. The addition of four importers would allow for more importer representation in the Board's decision making and also potentially provide an opportunity to increase diversity on the Board.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the background form, which represents the information collection and recordkeeping requirements that are imposed by the Plan, have been approved previously under OMB number 0581-0093. The Plan requires that two nominees be submitted for each vacant position. With regard to information collection requirements, adding four importers to the Board means that eight additional importers would be required to submit background forms (Form AD-755) to USDA in order to verify their eligibility for appointment to the Board. However, serving on the Board is optional, and the burden of submitting the background form would be offset by the benefits of serving on the Board. The estimated annual cost of the eight importers providing the required information would be $66 or $8.25 per importer. The additional minimal burden would be included in the existing information collection package under OMB number 0581-0093.
As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. Finally, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Regarding outreach efforts, the Board formed a subcommittee to review the production, assessment and import data to assess whether changes to the district boundaries and number of importers on the Board was warranted. The subcommittee held a teleconference on July 27, 2016. All Board and subcommittee meetings, including meetings held via teleconference, are open to the public and interested persons are invited to participate and express their views.
We have performed this initial RFA analysis regarding the impact of these changes to the Plan on small entities and we invite comments concerning potential effects of this action.
USDA has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with and would effectuate the purposes of the Act.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate so that the proposed changes, if adopted, may be implemented as soon as possible to allow for nominations to be conducted to fill the four new importer seats. All written comments received in response to this proposed rule by the date specified would be considered prior to finalizing this action.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Watermelon promotion.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1210 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 4901-4916 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
Pursuant to § 1210.320(c) of the Plan, the districts shall be as follows:
(a)
(b)
(d)
(g)
Pursuant to § 1210.320(d) of the Plan, there are twelve importer representatives on the Board based on the proportionate percentage of assessments paid by importers to the Board.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System (NUHOMS® System) listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to renew, for an additional 40-year period, Revision 1 of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and 13, and Amendment No. 14 of Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1004. These changes require, among other things, that all future amendments and revisions to this CoC include evaluations of the impacts to aging management activities (
Submit comments by October 27, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Christian Jacobs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 301-415-6825; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0138 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:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0138 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that
This proposed rule is limited to the renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, 13, Revision 1, and Amendment No. 14 of CoC No. 1004. Because the NRC considers this action to be non-controversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
The direct final rule will become effective on December 11, 2017. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this proposed rule by October 27, 2017, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC will address the comments received in response to these proposed revisions in a subsequent final rule. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn.
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or technical specifications.
For additional procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking Web site at
Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by expanding the list of affected engine fan cowl door (FCD) part numbers and adding Airbus Model A320-216 airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this Airworthiness Directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
The comment period for the NPRM published in the
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by November 13, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed 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
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.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes, Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The
Since we issued the NPRM, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued AD 2016-0257, dated December 16, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”). The MCAI added part number 238-0301-509 to the list of affected FCDs. In addition, we have certified Airbus Model A320-216 airplanes, which are also affected by the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, we have added Airbus Model A320-216 airplanes to the applicability of this SNPRM.
EASA has issued the MCAI to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, and -216 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Fan Cowl Door (FCD) losses were reported on aeroplanes equipped with CFM56 engines. Investigation results confirmed that in all cases the fan cowls were opened prior to the flight and were not correctly re-secured. During the pre-flight inspection, it was then not detected that the FCD[s] were not properly latched.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-flight loss of a FCD, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and/or injury to persons on the ground.
Prompted by these events, new FCD front latch and keeper assembly were developed, having a specific key necessary to un-latch the FCD. This key cannot be removed unless the FCD front latch is safely closed. The key, after removal, must be stowed in the flight deck at a specific location, as instructed in the applicable Aircraft Maintenance Manual. Applicable Flight Crew Operating Manuals have been amended accordingly. After modification, the FCD is identified with a different Part Number (P/N). Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-71-1068 to provide the modification instructions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0069 to require modification and re-identification of [affected] FCD[s] [or replacement of affected FCDs].
After that [EASA] AD was published, FCD P/N 238-0301-509 was identified as missing in the list of affected FCD P/N[s] provided in the [EASA] AD.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirement of EASA AD 2016-0069, which is superseded, and expands the list of affected FCD P/N[s].
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modifying the left-hand and right-hand FCDs on engines 1 and 2; installing a placard; and re-identifying both the left-hand and right-hand FCDs with a new part number. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We considered the comments received.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International stated that it supports the NPRM.
American Airlines commented that the parts cost shown in the proposed AD (in the NPRM) is for only one engine instead of two.
We agree that the costs specified in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) were only for one engine. We have revised the Costs of Compliance section in this SNPRM to show the cost for two engines.
American Airlines also requested that the cost of maintenance activities associated with the service information—
We do not agree with the commenter's request. We recognize that, in accomplishing the requirements of any AD, operators might incur additional maintenance or “incidental” costs in addition to the “direct” costs that are reflected in the cost analysis presented in the preamble of a proposed AD. However, the cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically does not include maintenance or incidental costs. We have not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.
American Airlines requested that the compliance time for the modification be changed from 35 months to 48 months. American Airlines stated that more time is necessary due to the size of its fleet and the lead time to obtain parts.
We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of the modification. In consideration of these items, as well as the reports of FCD losses in service, we have determined that a 35-month compliance time will ensure an acceptable level of safety and allow the modifications to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for most affected operators. In addition, we find that 35 months provides sufficient time to order parts and accomplish the required modification. However, under the provisions of paragraph (n)(1) of this proposed AD, we will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.
Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that we specify which FCDs need to be modified by listing the FCD serial numbers (S/N) in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). Paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would mandate reworking all FCDs on the affected aircraft. Delta stated that Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, specifies which FCDs require modification by identifying the applicable serial numbers. Delta stated that FCDs with serial numbers not listed in Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, do not require modification.
We disagree with the commenter's request. The State of Design Authority (EASA) and Airbus have determined the scope of discrepant FCD part numbers, which are identified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD as “old P/N.” The objective of the
Delta requested that paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be removed. Delta indicated that the proposed AD would mandate that the modified FCD be re-identified as specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD. Delta noted that this information and re-identification is already specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016; and Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016. Delta indicated that table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h) (i) and (k) of the proposed AD is a duplication of the re-identification requirement in paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD, and lends itself to confusion and errors. Delta proposed to delete the requirement in paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). Alternatively, Delta recommended that paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) refer to step 3.I.H. in Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, for the correct re-identification requirement.
We do not agree to remove paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD or refer to Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016. However, we do agree to clarify paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD. We have revised paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD to clarify that modified parts as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD are re-identified to the correct “new” part number identified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this proposed AD.
Delta requested that we remove the requirement for installing a placard on the flight deck stowage compartment area to note the location of the keys to the FCD latches. American Airlines and Delta both indicated that the placard and the location of the keys are not safety-related.
We disagree with the commenter's request. Installation of the placard is designed to ensure that the key is stowed in a particular location onboard the airplane and can be consistently retrieved from that location when needed. An operator may apply for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) using the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD, provided it can be shown that there is an alternative means to ensure the key is stowed onboard the airplane in a constantly retrievable and accessible location.
Delta requested that the alternative action in paragraphs (h) and (l)(2) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to install replacement FCDs using instructions “. . . approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA),” be removed from the proposed AD. Delta noted that neither the service information nor the MCAI indicate any airworthiness concerns with the FCD installation. Delta stated that the on-wing work does not involve checking or re-installing the FCD; it involves only replacing the latch assembly. Delta requested that the proposed AD either specify the airworthiness concern regarding the procedure or provide FAA-approved instructions.
We disagree with the commenter's request. Installation of a new part using procedures that are not approved might result in an inadvertent addition of an unsafe condition. We have coordinated with Airbus and EASA and agreed that the installation must be done in accordance with the approved methods specified in paragraphs (h) and (l)(2) of this proposed AD.
American Airlines requested that the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be revised to allow modification of spare FCDs in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-163, Revision 3, dated October 11, 2016, when an FCD is modified while off the airplane. American Airlines indicated that the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016, contain procedures that are only applicable to FCDs that are installed on an airplane.
We acknowledge the commenter's request and have determined that clarification is necessary. Paragraph (h) of this proposed AD allows installation of replacement parts that are acceptable for compliance with paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this proposed AD using methods other than Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016, that are approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. We have not changed this SNPRM in this regard.
Delta noted that paragraph (k) of the proposed AD would prohibit installing any FCD that has an old part number after the AD effective date. Delta noted that it is possible to have an airplane on which only one FCD is removed for maintenance. Delta requested that we clarify whether it is acceptable to have an aircraft with a mix of old and new part numbers on the FCDs, prior to the compliance deadline.
We agree to provide clarification. We have revised the requirement in paragraph (k) of this proposed AD to match the corresponding requirement in the EASA AD. If an “old” part is installed prior to the effective date of this AD, then after modification of this part to a “new” part, installation of an “old” part is prohibited as specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD. If a “new” part is installed, then as of the effective date of this AD, installation of an “old” part is prohibited as specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this proposed AD. These requirements apply to both engines.
American Airlines, Virgin America, and Delta requested that the parts installation prohibition in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be changed to allow affected FCDs to be installed on airplanes up to 35 months after the effective date of the AD. The commenters noted that FCDs are routinely removed for maintenance, and stated that the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would require any removed FCD with an “old” part number to be modified immediately. The commenters indicated that this requirement was overly restrictive when compared to the MCAI requirements or the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, which requires modifying FCDs within 35 months after the effective date of this AD.
We agree to provide clarification. As stated previously in the comment
American Airlines and Delta requested that the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be revised to allow the use of later revisions of service information. American Airlines indicated that the MCAI states: “The use of later approved revisions of this document is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD.”
We do not concur with the commenters' request. We cannot refer to any document that does not yet exist. In general terms, we are required by the Office of the Federal Register's (OFR) regulations to either publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as “referenced” material, in which case we may only refer to such material in the text of an AD. We may refer to the service document in the AD only if the OFR approved it for “incorporation by reference.” See 1 CFR part 51.
To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators must request approval to use later revisions as an AMOC with this AD under the provisions of paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.
Allegiant Air stated it has developed a procedure that requires a log entry each time an FCD is opened or closed. Allegiant Air noted that all of its FCD latches are painted bright orange in contrast to the blue color of the FCDs, which makes it easier for the crew to detect any unlatched doors and take corrective action. Allegiant Air suggested that these methods are sufficient to prevent any events caused by improperly closed and latched FCDs. Allegiant Air suggested that a modification to the FCDs is unnecessary if this procedure is followed.
We disagree with the commenter's request. EASA, as the State of Design Authority for Airbus products, has determined after conducting a risk analysis that an unsafe condition exists. EASA's analysis took into consideration the in-service events in the worldwide fleet that occurred despite some of the design or maintenance improvement methods that were implemented, including the ones noted by Allegiant Air. We agree with EASA's decision to mitigate the risk by mandating a new design solution, which makes it apparent to the flight crew on a pre-flight walk-around that an FCD is not latched. Although the commenter's specific proposal is not considered acceptable to address the identified unsafe condition, operators may request approval of an AMOC using the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD, provided they can show they have an alternative means to ensure the FCD is properly closed and locked. We have not changed this SNPRM in this regard.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
We estimate that this SNPRM affects 400 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this SNPRM:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by November 13, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214 and -216 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.
This AD was prompted by reports of engine fan cowl door (FCD) losses on airplanes equipped with CFM56 engines due to operator failure to close the FCD during ground operations. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight loss of an engine FCD and possible consequent damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 35 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish concurrently the actions in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated April 28, 2016.
(1) Modify the left-hand and right-hand FCDs on engines 1 and 2 that have an old part number (“Old P/N”), as applicable, as specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD.
(2) Install a placard on the box located at the bottom of the 120-volt unit (120 VU) panel, or at the bottom of the coat stowage, as applicable to airplane configuration.
(3) Re-identify the modified left-hand and right-hand FCDs with the new part number (“New P/N”), as applicable, as specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD.
Replacing the FCDs having a P/N listed as “Old P/N” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD with the FCDs having the corresponding P/Ns listed as “New P/N” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this AD. The replacement must be done in accordance with instructions 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).
Accomplishment of Airbus modification 157517 on an airplane in production is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this AD, provided that no FCD having a part number identified as “Old P/N” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD is installed on that airplane.
Accomplishment of Airbus modification 157519 or modification 157521 on an airplane in production is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) For any airplane with any FCD installed having a P/N identified as “Old P/N” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD as of the effective date of this AD: No person may install on an airplane a part number identified as “Old P/N” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD after accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD on that airplane.
(2) For any airplane with only FCDs installed having P/Ns that are identified as “New P/N” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD as of the effective date of this AD: No person may install on any airplane a part number identified as “Old P/N” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD as of the effective date of this AD.
Installation on an airplane of a right-hand or left-hand FCD having a part number approved after the effective date of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this AD for that airplane only, provided the conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD are met.
(1) The part number must be approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
(2) The FCD installation must be accomplished in accordance with airplane modification instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 00, dated December 18, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0257 dated December 16, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact 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) For 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class D airspace and establish Class E airspace designated as a surface area at University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, Norman, OK. The University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport requested establishment of this airspace. This action would also amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, Norman, OK, contained within the Oklahoma City, OK, airspace description, by removing the Oklahoma Westheimer Airport ILS localizer and realigning the southwest segment. Additionally, the name of the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport would be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database in Class D airspace. This action is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before November 13, 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 (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0825; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-12, 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.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
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 D airspace, establish Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, Norman, OK, to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations at the airport.
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-2017-0825; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-12.” 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:
Amending Class D airspace to within a 4.2-mile radius (reduced from 4.5-miles) of University of Oklahoma
Establishing Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 4.2-mile radius of University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport; and
Amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at University of Oklahoma, Westheimer Airport, Norman, OK, contained within the Oklahoma City, OK, airspace description, to within a 6.7-mile radius (reduced from 8.9-miles), removing the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport ILS Localizer from the airspace description, and realigning the southwest extension to 2-miles (increased from 1.8-miles) either side of the 213° bearing from the airport (previously referenced from the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport ILS Localizer) from the 6.7-mile radius to 7.8-miles southwest of the airport.
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.
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.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,700 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, excluding that airspace within the Oklahoma City, OK, Class C airspace area. 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 to and including 3,700 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport excluding that airspace within the Oklahoma City, OK, Class C airspace area. 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 700 feet above the surface within an 8.1-mile radius of Will Rogers World Airport, and within an 8.2-mile radius of Tinker AFB, and within a 6.7-mile radius of University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 213° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 7.8 miles southwest of the airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of David Jay Perry Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Clarence E. Page Municipal Airport, and within a 6.6-mile radius of El Reno Regional Airport, and within a 6.8-mile radius of Wiley Post Airport, and within a 6.8-mile radius of Sundance Airport.
International Trade Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) proposes to amend provisions of its Rules of Practice and Procedure concerning the Privacy Act. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to delete certain exemptions that pertain only to systems of records that the Commission is removing and to add exemptions that pertain to a new system of records.
To be assured of consideration, written comments must be received by 5:15 p.m. on November 27, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number MISC-043, by any of the following methods:
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary, telephone (202) 205-2000, or Clara Kuehn, Office of the General Counsel, telephone (202) 205-3012, United States International Trade Commission. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at (202) 205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
Section 335 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1335) authorizes the Commission to adopt such reasonable procedures, rules, and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out its functions and duties. This rulemaking seeks to amend provisions of the Commission's existing Rules of Practice and Procedure concerning the Privacy Act. The Commission invites the public to comment on these proposed rules amendments.
Consistent with its ordinary practice, the Commission is issuing these proposed amendments in accordance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedure in section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). That procedure entails the following steps: (1) Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking; (2) solicitation of public comments on the proposed amendments; (3) Commission review of public comments on the proposed amendments; and (4) publication of final amendments at least thirty days prior to their effective date.
The Commission proposed to revise 19 CFR 201.32, which governs exemptions to certain Privacy Act requirements. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k), the Commission proposes to delete two exemptions currently set forth in paragraphs 201.32(a) and (b). These two exemptions pertain only to Inspector General Investigative Files (General) and Inspector General Investigative Files (Criminal). These exemptions will be deleted because the Office of Inspector General is removing these two Privacy Act systems of records. The Commission proposes to redesignate paragraph 201.32(c) as 201.32(a) and correct a typographical error in that paragraph. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2), the Commission proposes to add exemptions for a new Privacy Act system of records, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Records. The Commission proposes to promulgate this new exemption at paragraph (b) to protect from disclosure classified and other sensitive information.
The Commission certifies that the proposed amendments to the Commission's rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The proposed amendments to the Commission's rules do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
No actions are necessary under title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) because the proposed amendments to the Commission's rules will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Commission has determined that the proposed amendments to the Commission's rules do not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
The proposed amendments to the Commission's rules do not have Federalism implications warranting the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999).
The proposed amendments to the Commission's rules are not “major rules” as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801
Administrative practice and procedure.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1335, the United States International Trade Commission proposes to amend 19 CFR part 201 as follows:
19 U.S.C. 1335; 19 U.S.C. 2482, unless otherwise noted.
(a) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (5) and (6), records contained in the system entitled “Personnel Security Investigative Files” have been exempted from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) through (I) and (f) of the Privacy Act. * * *
(b) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2), records contained in the system entitled “Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Records” have been exempted from subsections c(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) through (I) and (f) of the Privacy Act. Pursuant to section 552a(k)(1) of the Privacy Act, the
By order of the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve a portion of the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Delaware that pertains to the interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). In the Final Rules section of this issue of the
Comments must be received in writing by October 27, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0408 at
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at
For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, “State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS,” that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 21-3 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP) to the Secretary of Commerce for review. If approved, Amendment 21-3 would modify the PCGFMP to manage darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch (POP), currently overfished species, as set-asides or “soft-caps” rather than with allocations, or “hard caps” for the Pacific whiting at-sea sectors. This action is intended to avoid the risk of early fishery closures of the at-sea Pacific whiting sectors due to incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish and POP, while keeping the catch of these species within their respective annual catch limits (ACLs).
Comments on Amendment 21-3 must be received on or before Sunday, November 27, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0102, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Information relevant to Amendment 21-3, which includes a memo categorically excluding this action from National Environmental Protection Act, a regulatory impact review (RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) are available for public review during business hours at the NMFS West Coast Regional Office at 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115, or by requesting them via phone or the email address listed in the
Miako Ushio, phone: 206-526-4644, or email:
FMP Amendment 21-3, background information and documents are available at the Council's Web site at
NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone off Washington, Oregon, and California under the PCGFMP. The Council prepared and NMFS implemented the PCGFMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
Amendment 21-3 consists of two components: (1) Changes in the way two overfished species, darkblotched rockfish and POP are managed in the Pacific whiting at-sea sectors, and (2) allows automatic closure by NMFS of one or both of the at-sea sectors in the event that the set-aside plus the available reserve for unforeseen catch events (known as the “buffer”) of either species is projected to be reached.
The Council has been exploring alternative management measures with the purpose of substantially reducing the risk of the Pacific whiting at-sea sectors (mothership [MS] and catcher processor [CP]) not attaining their respective whiting allocations based on the incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish or POP, which are currently overfished species subject to rebuilding plans. Timeliness and administrative feasibility were important considerations of the Council in exploring these measures. The proposed FMP amendment is intended to be an interim solution to address the immediate needs of the at-sea sectors with regards to incidental catch of darkblotched rockfish or POP.
NMFS welcomes comments on the proposed FMP amendment through the end of the comment period. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 21-3 has been submitted for Secretarial review and approval. NMFS expects to publish and request public review and comment on proposed regulations to implement Amendment 21-3 in the near future. For public comments on the proposed rule to be considered in the approval or disapproval decision on Amendment 21-3, those comments must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period for the amendment, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by October 27, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a new collection to conduct the Third National Survey of WIC Participants (NSWP-III).
Written comments must be received on or before November 27, 2017.
Comments may be sent to: Anthony Panzera, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Anthony Panzera at 703-305-2576, or via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Anthony Panzera at
The study has two purposes. The first is to obtain the data necessary to accomplish the study objectives. To accomplish study objectives, the following data collections are planned: (1) A Certification Survey with up to 2,000 recently certified WIC participants; (2) a Denied Applicant Survey with up to 240 WIC applicants who did not qualify for the program; (3) a Program Experiences Survey with up to 1,500 current WIC program participants; (4) a Former Participant Case Study with 520 inactive WIC program participants who have stopped redeeming WIC benefits; (5) a State Agency Survey with 90 agencies, including 50 States and the District of Columbia, the 34 Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs), and 5 U.S. Territories; (6) and a Local WIC Agency Survey with 965 local WIC agency directors. In addition, 20 Local WIC Agency staff will be maintaining a Denied Applicants Log.
The second purpose is to pilot a new methodology for the future annual estimates of improper payments in the WIC program. Under this approach, the data collection instruments and recruiting materials, developed for the 2018 Certification Survey and Denied Applicants Survey, will be fielded in 2019 and 2020 by replacing one of 10 “panels” from the 2018 sample with newly selected WIC participants (180 per year) and denied applicants (24 per year); these data will be pooled with the extant 2018 data from the remaining (non-replaced) panels to update the estimates of improper payments in each year. Data collection activities in these 2 years will include recruiting recently certified WIC participants to complete the Certification Survey and denied WIC applicants to complete the Denied Applicant Survey.
Comments are invited on the following topics: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were 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 use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, and/or other forms of information technology.
The initial sample for the State Agency Survey will consist of 90 State WIC agency directors. Assuming that 100 percent respond to the web-based survey, the resulting respondent sample will include approximately 90 State WIC agency directors.
Local WIC agency directors will also complete a web-based survey, the Local WIC Agency Survey. The initial sample will include 965 local WIC agency directors and, assuming an 80 percent response rate, the final sample will result in 772 local WIC agency directors.
The initial sample size for the Certification Survey is 2,000 current WIC program participants. A portion of the current WIC program participants in the sample unit may complete up to two surveys, the Certification Survey and the Program Experiences Survey. A sample of 1,000 current WIC program participants, a subset of the sample of 2,000 WIC program participants, will be recruited to complete both the Certification Survey and the Program Experiences Survey interviews in person during the same visit. Assuming an 80 percent response rate for each survey, a total of 1,600 current WIC program participants will complete Certification Surveys, and 800 will also complete the Program Experiences Survey.
An additional sample for the Program Experiences Survey will be administered by telephone or in person during a follow-up home visit. The initial sample size is 1,500 current WIC program participants, and assuming an 80 percent response rate, the final sample will include 1,200 current program participants (750 by telephone and 450 in-person).
The Denied Applicant Survey, administered in person, will include an initial sample of 240 recently denied WIC program applicants. Assuming an 80 percent response rate, the final sample will be 192 recently denied WIC program applicants.
This study includes a Former WIC Participant Case Study with an initial sample of 520 former WIC program participants. As a qualitative case study with people who are no longer participating in the program, the expected response rate is 30 percent. This response rate will result in 156 respondents who will be asked screening questions. Assuming 20 percent are screened out, the final screened sample will be 125 former participants.
The Alternative Methodology Pilot Studies will take place in 2019 and 2020. The initial sample size for each is estimated to be 180 current WIC program participants for the Certification Survey sample and 24 recently denied WIC program applicants for the Denied Applicant Survey sample. Assuming an 80 percent response rate for each sample, the resulting respondent sample will include approximately 150 current WIC program participants and 19 recently denied WIC program applicants for each year.
As part of the 2018 data collection activities, an initial sample of 20 Local Agency staff will maintain a Denied Applicants Log. FNS expects that all of the staff will maintain this log.
There is pre-testing burden associated with this collection that was reviewed and approved by OMB on September 22, 2016, under OMB #0584-0606 FNS Generic Clearance Pre-Testing, Pilot, and Field Test Studies. A total of 2,213 responses and 102 burden hours were approved under the generic clearance.
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory Committee (Committee) at Stennis Space Center and Ocean Springs, Mississippi.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 25, 2017 from 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., and Thursday, October 25, 2017 from 8:30-2:45 p.m. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. Refer to the Web page listed below for the most up-to-date agenda.
On Tuesday, October 24th and Thursday, October 26th, the meeting will be held in the Santa Rosa Room, Building #11111, John C. Stennis Space Center, MS 39529. On Wednesday, October 25th, the meeting will be held at Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, University of Southern Mississippi, 703 E Beach Dr., Ocean Springs, MS 39564. Venues may be subject to change. Refer to the Web page listed below for the most up-to-date information.
Carl C. Gouldman, Designated Federal Official, U.S. IOOS Advisory Committee, U.S. IOOS Program, 1315 East-West Highway, Station 2605, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone 240-533-9456; Fax 301-713-3281; Email
The Committee was established by the NOAA Administrator as directed by Section 12304 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act, part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11). The Committee advises the NOAA Administrator and the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC) on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 12302 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 and other appropriate matters as the Under Secretary refers to the Committee for review and advice. The Committee will provide advice on:
(a) Administration, operation, management, and maintenance of the System;
(b) expansion and periodic modernization and upgrade of technology components of the System;
(c) identification of end-user communities, their needs for information provided by the System, and the System's effectiveness in dissemination information to end-user communities and to the general public; and
(d) any other purpose identified by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere or the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee.
The meeting will be open to public participation with a 15-minute public comment period on October 24, 2017, from 2:30 p.m. to 2:45 p.m., on October 25, 2017, from 4:00 p.m. to 4:15 p.m., and on October 26, 2017, from 2:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m. (check agenda on Web site to confirm time.) The Committee expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three (3) minutes. Written comments should be received by the Designated Federal Official by October 20, 2017 to provide sufficient time for Committee review. Written comments received after October 20th, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Pre-registration is required for those attending in person. Please send your name as it appears on driver's license and the organization/company affiliation you represent to Carl Gouldman. This information must be received by October 13, 2017. Additionally, a webinar will be provided. Sign-up information for the webinar will be posted on the Web site.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
This action serves as a notice that NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), has found that the following stocks are, or remain, subject to overfishing or overfished: South Atlantic red grouper, Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack, and Northwestern Atlantic witch flounder. NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, notifies the appropriate fishery management council (Council) whenever it determines that overfishing is occurring, a stock is in an overfished condition, or a stock is approaching an overfished condition.
Regina Spallone, (301) 427-8568.
Pursuant to section 304(e)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(2), NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, must notify Councils, and publish in the
NMFS has determined that South Atlantic red grouper is subject to overfishing and overfished. This determination is based on the most recent stock assessment (SEDAR 53), finalized in 2017, using data through 2015. This assessment supports a finding of subject to overfishing because the current estimate of fishing mortality (F) is above the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), and overfished because the spawning stock biomass estimate is less than the
NMFS has determined that the Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack is subject to overfishing. This determination is based on the most recent assessment (SEDAR 33 Update), finalized in 2016, using data through 2015. This assessment supports a finding of subject to overfishing because the current estimate of F is above the MFMT. This stock remains overfished because the spawning stock biomass estimate is less than the MSST. NMFS informed the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council that they must take action to end overfishing immediately on this stock and implement conservation and management measures to rebuild it.
NMFS has determined that Northwestern Atlantic witch flounder is still overfished and the overfishing status is unknown. The assessment peer review panel for this stock rejected the most recent benchmark assessment, finalized in 2017, using data through 2015. However, this stock is at historical low levels and other signs of poor stock condition support this stock remaining listed as overfished. Lack of similar reliable indicators for overfishing status support changing the overfishing status of this stock to unknown. NMFS has notified the New England Fishery Management Council that they must implement conservation and management measures to rebuild this stock.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before November 27, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Walter Ikehara, (808) 725-5175 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
Regulations at 50 CFR 665, Subpart C, require that all participants (including vessel owners, operators, and crew) in the boat-based non-commercial bottomfish fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone around the main Hawaiian Islands obtain a federal bottomfish permit. This collection of information is needed for permit issuance, to identify actual or potential participants in the fishery, determine qualifications for permits, and to help measure the impacts of management controls on the participants in the fishery. The permit program is also an effective tool in the enforcement of fishery regulations and serves as a link between the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and fishermen.
Regulations at 50 CFR 665 require that all vessel owners or operators in this fishery submit a completed logbook form at the completion of each fishing trip. These logbook reporting sheets document the species and amount of species caught during the trip. The reporting requirements are crucial to ensure that NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will be able to monitor the fishery and have fishery-dependent information to develop an Annual Catch Limit for the fishery, evaluate the effectiveness of management measures, determine whether changes in fishery management programs are necessary, and estimate the impacts and implications of alternative management measures.
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and
eLandings, seaLandings, and tLandings are data entry components of the Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System (IERS), which is a collaborative program run by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Alaska Regional Office, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). eLandings, seaLandings, and tLandings provide the Alaska fishing industry with a consolidated electronic means of reporting production and landings of commercial fish and shellfish to multiple management agencies with a single reporting system. NMFS collects groundfish harvest and production data for fishery management plan species in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). ADF&G collects harvest data for groundfish species taken in State of Alaska waters and has responsibility for some fisheries in the EEZ, such as lingcod and black rockfish. ADF&G and NMFS cooperatively manage the Crab Rationalization Program fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. NMFS and IPHC cooperatively manage Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) for Pacific halibut and sablefish in both State waters and in the EEZ.
eLandings is a web-based application used by vessels and processors to report groundfish, crab, Pacific halibut, and sablefish production and landings data. Processors with limited internet access, such as the at-sea fleet, use eLandings client desktop software named seaLandings, provided by NMFS, and submit the required reports as email attachments or via direct transmit over the Internet. Once data are entered and submitted, the User must print daily through eLandings each landing report, production report, logbook report, and if an IFQ delivery, each IFQ receipt. The parties to the information must acknowledge the accuracy of the printed reports by signing them and entering the date signed. In addition, the User must make the printed copies available upon request of NMFS observers and authorized officers.
tLandings is a software application for tender vessels that records landings data on a USB flash drive and creates a printable fish ticket. The fish ticket is printed on board the tender vessel and signed by the delivering catcher vessel operator. When the tender vessel delivers to the shoreside processor, the shoreside processor uploads the landing information on the USB flash drive into eLandings.
Some of the benefits of IERS include improved data quality, automated processing of data, improved process for correcting or updating information, availability of more timely data for fishery managers, and reduction of duplicative reporting of similar information to multiple agencies.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of committee meeting.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976, the Department of Defense announces that the following Federal advisory committee meeting will take place.
The meeting will be held on Friday, October 20, 2017, Time 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting will be required to show a government photo ID upon entering West Point in order to gain access to the meeting location. All members of the public are subject to security screening.
The meeting will be held in the Haig Room, Jefferson Hall, West Point, New York 10996.
Mrs. Deadra K. Ghostlaw, the Designated Federal Officer for the committee, in writing at: Secretary of the General Staff, ATTN: Deadra K. Ghostlaw, 646 Swift Road, West Point, NY 10996; by email at:
The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The USMA BoV provides independent advice and recommendations to the President of the United States on matters related to morale, discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and any other matters relating to the Academy that the Board decides to consider.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the committee during the meeting. However, the committee Designated Federal Official and Chairperson may choose to invite certain submitters to present their comments verbally during the open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the committee Chairperson, may allot a specific amount of time for submitters to present their comments verbally.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by November 27, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0341, using any of the following methods:
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Jennifer Johnson, 571-372-6100. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available electronically on the Internet at:
The clause at DFARS 252.239-7000, Protection Against Compromising Emanations, requires that the contractor provide, upon request of the contracting officer, documentation that information technology used or provided under the contract meets appropriate information assurance requirements.
The clause at DFARS 252.239-7006, Tariff Information, requires that the contractor provide to the contracting officer upon request—
(1) A copy of the contractor's existing tariffs (including changes);
(2) Before filing, a copy of any application to a Federal, State, or other regulatory agency for new rates, charges, services, or regulations relating to any tariff or any of the facilities or services to be furnished solely or primarily to the Government, and, upon request, a copy of all information, material, and data developed or prepared in support of or in connection with such an application; and
(3) Any application submitted by anyone other than the contractor that may affect the rate or conditions of services under the agreement or contract.
DFARS 239.7408 requires the contracting officer to obtain a detailed special construction proposal from a common carrier that submits a proposal or quotation that has special construction requirements related to the performance of basic telecommunications services.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by November 27, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0390, using any of the following methods:
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Mr. Mark Gomersall, 571-372-6099. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available electronically on the Internet at:
The clause at DFARS 252.229-7010, Relief from Customs Duty on Fuel (United Kingdom), is prescribed at DFARS 229.402-70(j) for use in solicitations issued and contracts
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, DoD.
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 27, 2017.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, DoD.
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 27, 2017.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 27, 2017.
The information collection requirement at DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, becomes necessary when: (1) A prime contractor has identified specific small business concerns in its subcontracting plan; and (2) subsequent to award substitutes one of the small businesses identified in its subcontracting plan with a firm that is not a small business. The intent of this information collection is to alert the contracting officer of this situation.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 27, 2017.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-59 with attached Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Bahrain requested to upgrade its existing twenty (20) F-16 Block 40 aircraft to the F-16V configuration. The requested sale comprises of twenty-three (23) F-110-GE-129 engines (includes 3 spares); twenty-three (23) APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radars (includes 3 spares); twenty-three (23) Modular Mission Computers (includes 3 spares); twenty-three (23) Embedded Global Navigation Systems/LN260 EGI (includes 3 spares); twenty-three (23) Improved Programmable Display Generators (iPDGs) (includes 3 spares); forty (40) LAU-129 launchers; twenty-five (25) AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER Pods; two (2) AIM-9X Sidewinder Missiles; two (2) AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM); two (2) WGU-43 Guidance Control Unit (GBU) Guidance Control Unit (GCU) (for GBU-24 Paveway III); two (2) BSU-84 Air Foil Group (AFG) (for GBU-24 Paveway III); five (5) KMU-572 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) Tailkits (for GBU-38 JDAM and GBU-54 Laser JDAM); two (2) GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) Guided Test Vehicles (GTV); two (2) AGM-84 Harpoon Exercise Missiles; three (3) MAU-210 ECCG (for GBU-50 Enhanced Paveway II); three (3) BLU-109 Inert Bomb Bodies; four (4) MK-82/BLU-111 Inert Bomb Bodies; and two (2) GMU-152 or FMU-139 Fuzes.
This sale also includes one (1) Joint Mission Planning System, one (1) F-16V simulator, twenty (20) AN/ALQ-211 AIDEWS Systems, one (1) avionics level test station, six (6) DB-110 Advanced Reconnaissance Systems, two (2) LAU-118A Launchers, forty-five (45) AN/ARC-238 SINCGARS Radio or equivalent, twenty-three (23) Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) systems or equivalent; twenty-three (23) cryptographic appliques; two (2) CATM-9L/M, two (2) AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM), three (3) MXU-651 AFG (for GBU-50 Enhanced Paveway II), four (4) DSU-38 Precision Laser Guidance sets (PLGS) (for GBU-54 Laser JDAM), four (4) AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW) Captive Flight Vehicles (CFV), three (3) MK-84/BLU-117 Inert Bomb Bodies, two (2) FMU-152 D-1 Inert Fuzes, three (3) BRU-57 Bomb Racks, two (2) BRU-61 Bomb Racks for SDB, two (2) ADU-890 SDB adapter cable for CMBRE, two (2) ADU-891 AMRAAM/AIM-9X adapter cable for CMBRE, Telemetry for all flight test assets secure communication equipment, spares and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor technical support services, containers, missile support and test equipment, integration test, site survey, design, construction studies/analyses/services, associate operations, maintenance, training, support facilities, cybersecurity, critical computer resources support, force protection, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated program cost is $1.082 billion.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major Non-NATO ally which has been and continues to be an important security partner in the region. Our mutual defense interests anchor our relationship and the Royal Bahraini Air
The proposed sale improves Bahrain's capability to meet current and future threats. Bahrain will use this capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. The upgraded F-16Vs will provide an increase in the capability of existing aircraft to sustain operations, meet training requirements, and support transition training for pilots to the upgraded aircraft. This upgrade will improve interoperability with U.S. forces and other regional allies. Bahrain will have no difficulty absorbing this upgrade into its armed forces.
The proposed sale will not affect the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be Lockheed Martin. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of at least five (5) additional U.S. Government representatives to Bahrain.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. This sale will involve the release of sensitive technology to Bahrain. The F-16V weapon system is UNCLASSIFIED, except as noted below. The aircraft utilizes the F-16C/D airframe and features advanced avionics and systems. It contains the General Electric F-110-GE-129 engine, AN/APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radars, digital flight control system, internal and external electronic warfare equipment, AN/APX126 Advanced Identification Friend of Foe (AIFF), LN260 Embedded GPS/INS (EGI), Modular Mission Computers (MMC), improved Programmable Display Generators (iPDG), AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER Pods, Multifuncation Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS-JTRS), operational flight trainer, and software computer programs.
2. Sensitive and/or classified (up to SECRET) elements of the proposed F-16V include hardware, accessories, components, and associated software: AN/APX126 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF), cryptographic appliques, Secure communication equipment, Joint Mission Planning System, F-16V Simulator, AN/ALQ- 211 AIDEWS Pods, Avionics Level Test Station, DB-110 Advanced Reconnaissance Systems, LAU-118A Launchers, and F-110-GE-129 engine. Additional sensitive areas include operating manuals and maintenance technical orders containing performance information, operating and test procedures, and other information related to support operations and repair. The hardware, software, and data identified are classified to protect vulnerabilities, design and performance parameters and other similar critical information.
3. The AN/APG-83 is an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar upgrade for the F-16. It includes higher processor power, higher transmission power, more sensitive receiver electronics, infrared signature and Advanced Interference Blanker Units, and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), which creates higher-resolution ground maps from a greater distance than existing mechanically scanned array radars (e.g., APG-68). The upgrade features an increase in detection range of air targets, increases in processing speed and memory, as well as significant improvements in all modes. The highest classification of the radar is SECRET.
4. AN/ALQ-211 Airborne Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suite (AIDEWS) provides passive radar warning, wide spectrum RF jamming, and control and management of the entire Electronic Warfare (EW) system. The commercially developed system software and hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. The system is classified SECRET when loaded with a U.S. derived EW database, which will be provided.
5. AN/ARC-238 SINCGARS Radio or equivalent is considered UNCLASSIFIED, but employs cryptographic technology that is classified SECRET. Classified elements include operating characteristics, parameters, technical data, and keying material.
6. AN/APX-126 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) is a system capable of transmitting and interrogating Mode V and is supported by cryptographic appliques. It is UNCLASSIFIED unless/until Mode IV and/or Mode V operational evaluator parameters are loaded into the equipment. Classified elements of the AIFF system include software object code, operating characteristics, parameters, and technical data are SECRET.
7. The Embedded GPS-INS (EGI) LN-260 is a sensor that combines GPS and inertial sensor inputs to provide accurate location information for navigation and targeting. The EGI LN-260 is UNCLASSIFIED. The GPS crypto variable keys needed for highest GPS accuracy are classified up to SECRET.
8. The Modular Mission Computer (MMC) is the central computer for the F-16. As such it serves as the hub for all aircraft subsystems, avionics, and weapons. The hardware and software (Operational Flight Program—OFP) are classified up to SECRET.
9. An Improved Programmable Display Generator (iPDG) will support the two color MFD's, allowing the pilot to set up to twelve display programs. One of them includes a color Horizontal Situation Display, which will be, provide the pilot with a God's eye view of the tactical situation. Inside is a 20MHz, 32-bit Intel 80960 Display Processor and a 256K battery-backed RAM system memory. The color graphics controller is based on the T.I. TMS34020 Raster Graphics Chipset. The IPDG also contains substantial growth capabilities including a high-speed Ethernet interface (10/100BaseT) and all the hardware necessary to support digital moving maps. The digital map function can be enabled by the addition of software. The hardware and software are UNCLASSIFIED.
10. Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) is a multi-platform PC-based mission planning system. JMPS hardware is UNCLASSIFIED, but the software is classified up to SECRET.
11. DB-110 is a tactical airborne reconnaissance system. This capability permits reconnaissance missions to be conducted from very short range to long range by day or night. It is an under-the-weather, podded system that produces high resolution, dual-band electro-optical and infrared imagery. The DB-110 system is UNCLASSIFIED.
12. The SNIPER (AN/AAQ-33) targeting system is UNCLASSIFIED and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in in electro-optical clarity and haze, and low light targeting capability. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified CONFIDENTIAL. Overall system classification is SECRET.
13. The AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM) is a supersonic, air launched, aerial intercept, guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. The missile employs active radar target tacking, proportional navigation guidance, and active Radio Frequency
14. AIM-9X Sidewinder missile is an air-to-air guided missile that employs a passive infrared (IR) target acquisition system that features digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. The AIM-9X tactical and CATM guidance units are subsets of the overall missile and were recently designated as MDE. The AIM-9X is CONFIDENTIAL, Major components and subsystems range from UNCLASSIFIED to CONFIDENTIAL, and technical data and other documentation are classified up to SECRET. The overall system classification is SECRET.
The AIM-9X is launched from the aircraft using a LAU-129 guided missile launcher (currently in country inventory). The LAU-129 provides mechanical and electrical interface between missile and aircraft. The LAU-129 system is UNCLASSIFIED.
15. AGM-88B/C HARM is an air-to-ground missile designed to destroy or suppress enemy radars used for air defense. HARM has wide frequency coverage, is target reprogrammable in flight, and has a reprogrammable threat library. Hardware and software for the system is classified SECRET and ballistics data is CONFIDENTIAL. The overall system classification is SECRET.
The AGM-88 is launched from the aircraft using a LAU-118A guided missile launcher.
The LAU-118A provides mechanical and electrical interface between missile and aircraft.
The LAU-118A system is UNCLASSIFIED.
16. GBU-10/12: 2,000-lb (GBU-10) and 500-lb (GBU-12) laser-guided bombs (LGBs). The LGB is a maneuverable, free-fall weapon that guides on laser energy reflected off of the target. The LGB is delivered like a normal general purpose warhead and the laser guidance guides the weapon into the target. Laser designation for the weapon can be provided by a variety of laser target designators. The LGB consists of a laser guidance kit, a computer control group and a warhead specific air foil group, that attach to the nose and tail of Mk 84, Mk 82 bomb bodies.
a. The GBU-10: This is a 2,000lb (BLU-117 B/B or Mk 84) General Purpose (GP) guided bomb fitted with the MXU-651 airfoil and the MAU-169 or MAU-209 computer control group to guide to its laser designated target.
b. The GBU-12: This is a 500lb (BLU-111/B or Mk-82) guided bomb fitted with the MXU- 650 airfoil and the MAU-169 or MAU 209 computer control group to guide to its laser designated target. The weapon components are UNCLASSIFIED. Some technical data and vulnerabilities/countermeasures are SECRET. The overall weapons classification is SECRET.
17. GBU-31 and GBU-38 are 2000lb/500lb Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM).
JDAM is a guidance kit that converts existing unguided free-fall bombs into precision-guided “smart” munitions. By adding a new tail section containing Inertial Navigation System (INS) guidance/Global Positioning System (GPS) guidance to existing inventories of BLU-109, BLU-111 and BLU-117 or Mk-84 and Mk-82 bombs, the cost effective JDAM provides highly accurate weapon delivery in any “flyable” weather. The INS, using updates from the GPS, helps guide the bomb to the target via the use of movable tail fins. The JDAM and all of its components are UNCLASSIFIED, technical data for JDAM is classified up to SECRET.
JDAMs use the Global Positioning System (GPS) Precise Positioning System (PPS), which provides for a more accurate capability than the commercial version of GPS.
18. GBU-49 and GBU-50 are 500lb/2000lb dual mode laser and GPS guided munitions respectively. The GBU-49/50 use airfoil groups similar to those used on the GBU-12 and GBU-10 for inflight maneuverability. Weapons components are UNCLASSIFIED. Technical data and countermeasures/vulnerabilities are SECRET. The overall system classification is SECRET.
GBU-49/50s use the GPS PPS, which provides for a more accurate capability than the commercial version of GPS.
19. GBU-54/56 are the 500lb/2000lb Laser JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munitions): These weapons use the DSU-38/B/DSU-40 laser Sensor respectively and use both Global Position System aided inertial navigations and/or laser guidance to execute threat targets. The laser sensor enhances standard JDAM's reactive target capability by allowing rapid prosecution of fixed targets with large initial target location errors (TLE). The DSU-38/B Laser sensor also provides the additional capability to engage mobile targets. The addition of the DSU-38 laser sensor combined with additional cabling and mounting hardware turns a GBU-38 JDAM into a GBU-54 Laser JDAM. The addition of the DSU-40 laser sensor combined with additional cabling and mounting hardware turns a GBU-31 JDAM into a GBU-56 Laser JDAM. Weapons components are UNCLASSIFIED. Technical data and countermeasures/vulnerabilities are SECRET. The overall system classification is SECRET.
Laser JDAMs use the GPS PPS, which provides for a more accurate capability than the commercial version of GPS.
20. GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB): The GBU-39 small diameter bomb (SDB) is a 250-lb class precision guided munition that allows aircraft with an ability to carry a high number of bombs. The weapon offers day or night, adverse weather, precision engagement capability against pre-planned fixed or stationary soft, non-hardened, and hardened targets, with a significant standoff range. Aircraft are able to carry four SDBs in place of one 2,000-lb bomb. The SDB is equipped with a GPS-aided inertial navigation system to attack fixed, stationary targets such as fuel depots and bunkers. The SDB and all of its components are UNCLASSIFIED; technical data is classified up to SECRET.
SDBs use the GPS PPS, which provides for a more accurate capability than the commercial version of GPS.
21. The GBU-24 Paveway III is a 2000lb class low level laser guided munition that can be employed at high, medium, and low altitudes. GBU-24 components are UNCLASSIFIED. Target designation tactics and associated aircraft maneuvers, the probability of destroying specific/peculiar targets, vulnerabilities regarding countermeasures, and the electromagnetic environment is classified SECRET.
22. The AGM-154 is a family of low-cost standoff weapons that are modular in design and incorporate either a sub-munition or a unitary warhead. Potential targets for Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) range from soft targets, such as troop concentration, to hardened point targets like bunkers. The AGM-154C is a penetrator weapon that carries a BROACH warhead and pay load. The AGM-154 hardware, software and maintenance data is UNCLASSIFIED. Vulnerabilities and countermeasures are classified up to
The AGM-154 uses the GPS PPS, which provides for a more accurate capability than the commercial version of GPS.
23. The AGM-84L-1 Harpoon is a non-nuclear tactical weapon system currently in service in the U.S. Navy and in 28 other foreign nations. It provides a day, night, and adverse weather, standoff air-to-surface capability. Harpoon Block II is a follow on to the Harpoon missile that is no longer in production. Harpoon Block II is an effective Anti-Surface Warfare missile.
The AGM-84L-1 incorporates components, software, and technical design information that are considered sensitive. These elements are essential to the ability of the Harpoon missile to selectively engage hostile targets under a wide range of operational, tactical and environmental conditions. The following Harpoon components being conveyed by the proposed sale that are considered sensitive and are classified CONFIDENTIAL include: IIR seeker, INS, OPP software and, missile operational characteristics and performance data. The overall system classification is SECRET.
24. M61A l 20mm Vulcan Cannon: The 20mm Vulcan cannon is a six barreled automatic cannon chambered in 20x120mm with a cyclic rate of fire from 2,500-6,000 shots per minute. This weapon is a hydraulically powered air cooled Gatlin gun used to damage/destroy aerial targets, suppress/incapacitate personnel targets, and damage or destroy moving and stationary light materiel targets. The M61Al and its components are UNCLASSIFIED.
25. Software, hardware, and other data/information, which is classified or sensitive, is reviewed prior to release to protect system vulnerabilities, design data, and performance parameters. Some end-item hardware, software, and other data identified above are classified at the CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET level. Potential compromise of these systems is controlled through management of the basic software programs of highly sensitive systems and software-controlled weapon systems on a case-by-case basis.
26. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware or software source code in this proposed sale, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of systems with similar or advance capabilities.
27. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. Moreover, the benefits to be derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.
28. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government.
29. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
30. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Bahrain.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-35 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Bahrain has requested:
The estimated value of MDE is $21 million. The total overall estimated value is $27 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major Non-NATO ally, which has been and continues to be an important security partner in the region.
The proposed sale of TOW 2A, TOW 2B, TOW BB missiles, and technical support will advance Bahrain's efforts to develop an integrated ground defense capability. Bahrain will use the capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. This sale will also improve interoperability with United States and regional allies. Bahrain will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the U.S. Government or contractor representatives to travel to Bahrain for multiple periods for equipment de-processing/fielding, system checkout and new equipment training. There will be no more than two contractor personnel in Bahrain at any one time and all efforts will take less than two weeks in total.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Radio Frequency (RF) TOW 2A Missile (BGM-71E-4B-RF) is a direct-attack missile designed to defeat armored vehicles, reinforced urban structures, field fortifications and other such targets. TOW missiles are fired from a variety of TOW launchers used by the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers. The TOW 2A RF missile can be launched from the same launcher platforms as the existing wire-guided TOW 2A missile without modification to the launcher. The TOW 2A missile (both wire & RF) contains two tracker beacons for the launcher to track and guide the missile in flight. Guidance commands from the launcher are provided to the missile by a RF link contained within the missile case. The hardware, software, and technical publications to be provided with the sale are UNCLASSIFIED. The highest level of classified information authorized for released through the sale of the TOW 2A is SECRET.
2. The RF TOW 2B Aero Missile (BGM-71 F-3-RF) is a fly-over-shootdown missile designed to defeat armored vehicles. TOW missiles are fired from a variety of TOW Launchers in the inventories of the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers. The TOW 2B Aero RF missile can be launched from the same launcher platforms as wire-guided TOW 2B and TOW 2B Aero missiles without modification to the launcher. The TOW 2B missile (both wire-guided & RF) contains two tracker beacons for the launcher to track and guide the missile in flight. Guidance commands from the launcher are provided to the missile by an RF link contained within the missile case. The hardware and technical publications to be provided with the sale are UNCLASSIFIED. Software algorithms for the system are classified SECRET. The highest level of classified information released through the sale of the TOW 2B is SECRET.
3. The RF TOW Bunker Buster (BB), BGM-71-Fl-RF is a variant of the TOW 2A that replaces the TOW 2A warhead with a high explosive blast-fragmentation warhead. This bulk charge warhead is effective against reinforced concrete walls, light armored vehicles, and earth and timber bunkers. Guidance commands from the launcher are provided to the missile by an RF link contained within the missile case. The hardware, software, and technical publications to be provided with the sale are UNCLASSIFIED. The highest level of classified information released through the sale of the TOW 2B is SECRET.
4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements of these variants, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
5. A determination has been made by the U.S. Government that the Government of Bahrain can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Extension of public comment period.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is extending the comment period for the report “The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study—Brandon Road Draft Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement—Will County, Illinois” (GLMRIS-Brandon Road) for 45 days in response to stakeholder requests for an extension, from October 2, 2017 to November 16, 2017.
The comment period is extended for the draft GLMRIS-Brandon Road report published in the
Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
Contact Andrew Leichty, Program Manager, by mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, Clock Tower Building (ATTN: Leichty), P.O. Box 2004, Rock Island, IL 61204-2004, by phone: 309-794-5399; or by email:
The GLMRIS authority directed USACE to identify the range of options and technologies available to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and other aquatic pathways. The goal of the GLMRIS-Brandon Road Study is to prevent the upstream transfer of aquatic nuisance species while minimizing impacts to existing waterways uses and users.
Comments, including the names and addresses of those who comment, received during the comment period will be posted on the GLMRIS project Web site. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted, considered, and posted. Commenters may indicate that they do not wish to have their name or other personal information made available on the Web site. However, USACE cannot guarantee that information withheld from the Web site will be maintained as confidential. Persons requesting confidentiality should be aware that, under the Freedom of Information Act, confidentiality may be granted in only limited circumstances.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Record of Decision.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), St. Louis District, is issuing this notice to advise Federal, state, and local government agencies, affected Tribes, and the public that USACE has signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for
The USACE Mississippi Valley Division Commander, Major General Michael C. Wehr, signed the ROD on August 31, 2017.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Planning and Environmental Division North, CEMVP-PD-P (Attn: Mr. Kip Runyon), 1222 Spruce St., St. Louis, MO 63103-2833.
Kip Runyon, Environmental Planner, Regional Planning and Environmental Division North, at 314-331-8396 or by email at
USACE is charged with obtaining and maintaining a navigation channel on the Middle Mississippi River (MMR) that is nine feet deep and 300 feet wide with additional width in bends as necessary (commonly called the Regulating Works Project). As authorized by Congress, the Regulating Works Project is obtained by construction of revetment, rock removal, and river training structures to maintain bank stability and ensure adequate, reliable navigation depth and width. The Regulating Works Project is maintained through dredging and any needed maintenance to constructed features. The long-term goal of the Regulating Works Project, as authorized by Congress, is to obtain and maintain a navigation channel at the authorized dimensions and to reduce federal expenditures by alleviating the amount of annual maintenance dredging through the construction of river training structures. The Selected Plan consists of continuing with construction of new river training structures and revetment for navigation purposes until such time as the costs of placing more structures, including costs for any mitigation, are no longer justified by the resultant reduction in repetitive dredging quantities and associated costs. The Selected Plan also involves continuing to dredge as necessary, completing known bankline stabilization work to reduce the risk of a channel cutoff, placing additional revetment, and continuing to maintain existing structures.
The remaining construction associated with the Selected Plan is currently estimated from programmatic analysis to require approximately 4.4 million tons (2.9 million cubic yards) of rock. Dredge quantities are expected to decrease from their current average annual quantity of approximately 4 million cubic yards to approximately 2.4 million cubic yards after construction of new river training
Environmental impacts of the work associated with the Selected Plan will continue to be avoided and minimized to the extent practicable. Placement of river training structures is expected to increase the acreage of low-velocity habitat that is considered important habitat for many MMR fish species. However, placement of river training structures is also expected to reduce shallow to moderate-depth, moderate-to high-velocity habitat that is important for some MMR fish guilds. Analysis of the impacts of the Selected Plan to main channel border habitat suggests that future construction of river training structures will result in the consideration of compensatory mitigation measures. The specific impacts of each work area and any necessary compensatory mitigation measures will be covered in Tier II Site Specific Environmental Assessments, as appropriate.
The ROD, Final Supplement I, and supporting documentation are available at:
Delaware River Basin Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the methodology proposed to be used in the 2018 Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment Report is available for review and comment.
Comments on the assessment methodology or recommendations for the consideration of data sets should be submitted in writing before 5:00 p.m. EST on December 31, 2017.
Comments will be accepted
Mr. John Yagecic, Manager, Water Quality Assessment,
The Delaware River Basin Commission (“DRBC” or “Commission”) is an interstate and federal compact agency that was created in 1961 by concurrent legislation of the States of Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States Government for purpose of jointly managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin.
DRBC currently is compiling data for the
The proposed assessment methodology to be used in the 2018 Assessment is available for review at the following URL:
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 27, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Rebecca Walawender, 202-245-7399.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 27, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Tawanda Avery, 202-453-6471.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Similar data have been collected under the Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A prior to reauthorization of ESEA. This OMB clearance request is to continue these types of analyses, but using new data collection instruments updated to reflect changes due to the reauthorization of ESEA by the ESSA. The request is to begin data collection and analyses for the 2018-19 school year and subsequent years.
Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Institute of Education Sciences extends, for certain prospective eligible applicants described elsewhere in this notice, the deadline date for transmittal of applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018 under the Education Research and Development Centers competition and the Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Policy and Practice in Special Education competition, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers 84.305C and 84.324N. The Institute takes this action to allow more time for the preparation and submission of applications by prospective eligible applicants affected by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.
The extension of the application deadline date for this competition is intended to help eligible applicants that are located in a Federally declared disaster area, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in Texas and Florida to compete fairly with other eligible applicants under these competitions.
For the Education Research and Development Centers competition, Corinne Alfeld at
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
On May 30, 2017, we published in the
The extension of the application deadline date in this notice also applies to eligible applicants that are located in a Federally declared disaster area, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (see
In accordance with the NIA, eligible applicants for these competitions have the ability and capacity to conduct scientifically valid research. Eligible applicants include, but are not limited to, nonprofit and for-profit organizations and public and private agencies and institutions, such as colleges and universities.
All information in the NIA published on May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24695), for these competitions remains the same, except for the deadline date.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 27, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Rebecca Walawender, 202-245-7399.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This collection is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 27, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Amanda Hoffman, 202-245-6951.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
Central Maine Power Company (CMP) has applied for a Presidential permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect an electric transmission line across the United States border with Canada.
Comments or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before October 27, 2017.
Comments or motions to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) at 202-586-5260 or via electronic mail at
The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038.
On July 27, 2017, Central Maine Power Company (CMP or “The Applicant”) filed an application with the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability of the Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential permit for the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) project. CMP has its principal place of business in Augusta, Maine. CMP Group, Inc. owns 100% of outstanding shares of CMP's common stock. CMP Group, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avangrid Networks, Inc., which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AVANGRID, a New York corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: AGR). Iberdrola, a corporation (
CMP proposes to construct, operate, maintain, and connect the NECEC project, which would cross the U.S.-Canada (Québec-Maine) international border in Beattie Township, Maine. From that point, the NECEC's transmission facilities would extend to the point of first interconnection with the ISO-New England operated power grid at CMP's Larrabee Road Substation in Lewiston, Maine. The proposed project includes (1) a 100-foot segment crossing the border; (2) approximately 145.3 miles of +/−320 kilovolt (kV) overhead high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line from the border crossing to (3) a new 345 kV alternating current (AC) to +/−320 kV HVDC 1,200 megawatt (MW) converter station at the Merrill Road Substation in Lewiston, Maine (Merrill Road Converter Station), which would convert the electrical power from DC to AC; (4) a 1.2-mile, above-ground 345 kV AC transmission line from Merrill Road Converter Station to the existing Larrabee Road Substation (and associated rebuild of 0.8 mile of lower-voltage 34.5 kV transmission line to make room in the corridor for the new 1.2-mile line); and (5) a 345 kV line terminal at the Larrabee Road Substation. The proposed project facilities would be capable of transmitting up to 1200 MW of power.
Since the restructuring of the electric industry began, resulting in the introduction of different types of competitive entities into the marketplace, DOE has consistently expressed its policy that cross-border trade in electric energy should be subject to the same principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination that apply to transmission in interstate commerce. DOE has stated that policy in export authorizations granted to entities requesting authority to export electric energy over international transmission facilities. Specifically, DOE expects transmitting utilities owning border facilities to provide access across the border in accordance with the principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination contained in the Federal Power Act and articulated in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order No. 888 (Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996)), as amended.
Additional copies of such motions to intervene also should be filed directly with: Randall S. Rich, Pierce Atwood LLP, 1875 K Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006,
Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, DOE must determine that the proposed action is in the public interest. In making that determination, DOE considers the environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, determines the project's impact on electric reliability by ascertaining whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions, and any other factors that DOE may also consider relevant to the public interest. Also, DOE must obtain the concurrences of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the
Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document, must be received on or before October 27, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0406, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the actions addressed in this document.
1.
2.
This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from June 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.
Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601
Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to:
Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the
As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.
For the 36 PMNs received by EPA during this period, Table 1 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; The date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer/importer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.
For the 17 NOCs received by EPA during this period, Table 2 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the NOC; the date the NOC was received by
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the
Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document, must be received on or before October 27, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0407, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the actions addressed in this document.
1.
2.
This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from July 3, 2017 to July 31, 2017, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.
Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601
Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to:
Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the
As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.
For the 49 PMNs received by EPA during this period, Table 1 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; The date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer/importer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.
For the 30 NOCs received by EPA during this period, Table 2 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the NOC; the date the NOC was received by EPA; the projected date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC; and the chemical identity.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts (SFFAC) 8,
The Statement is available on the FASAB Web site at
Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW., Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
As part of our cost savings initiative, the FCC will close our current Warehouse/Mailroom at 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743 at the end of September.
September 25, 2017.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
John Zentner at
This is a summary of the Commission's document, DA 17-918, released September 21, 2017. The complete text of this document can be downloaded at
Effective September 25, 2017, all documents, packages and equipment sent to FCC Headquarters via UPS, FedEx, Freight, or any overnight mail (other than United States Postal Service Express Mail), must be sent to our new Warehouse address: FCC, 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
Please note that this change has no effect on mail sent through the United States Postal Service (USPS). All USPS First Class Mail, Express Mail and Priority Mail should continue to be sent to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 and will continue being processed through USPS.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document announces that the second filing window for eligible full power and Class A television stations to file applications for alternate channels or expanded facilities will be open from October 3, 2017 through November 2, 2017.
September 27, 2017.
Joyce Bernstein,
Auction 1000, which was conducted pursuant to Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, was completed on April 13, 2017, and the Commission initiated a transition period during which broadcast television stations that received new channel assignments in the April 13, 2017 Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice will be reauthorized and relicensed. The deadline for applications for construction permits consistent with the requirements of that Public Notice were due July 12, 2017. The first priority filing window, which limited eligibility to a discrete number of stations, closed on September 15, 2017.
The second filing window opens on Tuesday, October 3, 2017 and closes at 11:59 p.m. EDT on Thursday, November 2, 2017, and any broadcast television station that received a new channel reassignment in the incentive auction repacking process may file during the second window. Eligible stations may file applications for expanded facilities that qualify as a minor change under the Commission's rules, or for alternate channels which will be treated as major change applications under the
Applications filed during the second filing window will be treated as filed on the last day of the window for purposes of determining mutual exclusivity. Stations with mutually exclusive applications will be notified and given a 90-day period to resolve their mutual exclusivity by proposing a technical solution or settlement in an amendment to their pending applications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document announces the date of the next meeting of the Commission's Disability Advisory Committee (Committee or DAC). The meeting is open to the public. During this meeting, members of the Committee will receive and discuss summaries of activities and recommendations from its subcommittees.
The Committee's next meeting will take place on Monday, October 16, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m. (EST).
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, in the Commission Meeting Room.
Elaine Gardner, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau: 202-418-0581 (voice); email:
The Committee was established in December 2014 to make recommendations to the Commission on a wide array of disability matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and to facilitate the participation of people with disabilities in proceedings before the Commission. The Committee is organized under, and operated in accordance with, the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The Committee held its first meeting on March 17, 2015.
At its October 16, 2017 meeting, the Committee is expected to receive and consider: Reports on the activities of its Video Programming Subcommittee; a report and recommendation from its Relay & Equipment Distribution Subcommittee regarding IP CTS quality metrics; a report and recommendation from its Technology Transitions Subcommittee regarding the technical and practical challenges of supporting compatibility of real-time text with refreshable Braille displays and similar assistive technologies; and a report and recommendation from its Emergency Communications Subcommittee regarding how to accelerate the integration of real time text by public safety answering points.
The Committee is also expected to receive presentations from Commission staff on matters of interest to the Committee. A limited amount of time may be available on the agenda for comments and inquiries from the public. The public may comment or ask questions of presenters via the email address
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. If making a request for an accommodation, please include a description of the accommodation you will need and tell us how to contact you if we need more information. Make your request as early as possible by sending an email to
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 27, 2017, to consider the following matters:
No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.
Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings.
Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule Establishing Restrictions on Qualified Financial Contracts of Certain FDIC supervised Institutions; Revisions to the Definition of Qualifying Master Netting Agreement and Related Definitions.
Memorandum and resolution re: Designated Reserve Ratio for 2018.
Summary reports, status reports, reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors, and reports of the Office of Inspector General.
Update of Projected Deposit Insurance Fund Losses, Income, and Reserve Ratios for the Restoration Plan.
Memorandum and resolution re: Regulatory Capital Rule: Simplification to the Capital Rule Pursuant to the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996.
The meeting will be held in the Board Room located on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.
This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet and subsequently made available on-demand
The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-7043.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 11, 2017.
1.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the mandatory Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with the Real Estate Lending Standards Regulation for State Member Banks (Reg H-5; OMB No. 7100-0261).
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 27, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information 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;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposal prior to giving final approval.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 12, 2017.
1.
2.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 20, 2017.
1.
1.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 23, 2017.
1.
1.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for Comments.
As steward of the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the availability of the draft National Occupational Research Agenda for Construction for public comment. Written by the NORA Construction Sector Council, the Agenda identifies the most important occupational safety
Electronic or written comments must be received by November 27, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0084 and docket number NIOSH-298, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Emily Novicki (
The National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) is a partnership program created to stimulate innovative research and improved workplace practices. The national agenda is developed and implemented through the NORA sector and cross-sector councils. Each council develops and maintains an agenda for its sector or cross-sector.
The National Occupational Research Agenda for Construction is intended to identify the research, information, and actions most urgently needed to prevent occupational injuries and illnesses in the construction sector. The National Occupational Research Agenda for Construction provides a vehicle for industry stakeholders to describe the most relevant issues, gaps, and safety and health needs for the sector. Each NORA research agenda is meant to guide or promote high priority research efforts on a national level, conducted by various entities, including: Government, higher education, and the private sector.
The first National Occupational Research Agenda for Construction was published in 2008 for the second decade of NORA (2006-2016). This draft is an updated agenda for the third decade of NORA (2016-2026). The revised agenda was developed considering new information about injuries and illnesses, the state of the science, and the probability that new information and approaches will make a difference. As the steward of the NORA process, NIOSH invites comments on the draft National Occupational Research Agenda for Construction. A copy of the draft Agenda is available at
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35), the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Through the proposed information collection, the researchers will obtain information about the characteristics, qualifications, and career trajectories of home visiting staff. The study will include a national survey of the MIECHV workforce, interviews with training and technical assistance experts, and site visits to home visiting programs in eight states that vary in terms of geography, population demographics, labor markets, and home visiting program offerings.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
The plan assures ORR that the State is capable of administering refugee assistance and coordinating employment and other social services for eligible caseloads in conformity with specific requirements. ORR proposes organizational and formatting changes to make the checklist more accessible to the user. Additionally, ORR proposes streamlining language to make the checklist easier to read. These proposed changes include technical corrections to regulatory citations. ORR proposes removing a number of requirements, including an assurance regarding the inclusion of refugee resettlement programs in pandemic influenza emergency plans and a basic description of providers conducting medical screening. ORR proposes to remove a requirement that all states describe a plan for the care, supervision of, and legal responsibility for, refugee children who become unaccompanied in the state. ORR also proposes to remove requirements specific to the Cuban/Haitian entrants and replace them with an assurance that states will provide all ORR-eligible populations with the
ORR proposes adding language to clarify the following requirements related to the Unaccompanied Refugee Minors (URM) program: State policy on education and training vouchers, medical coverage, the location of URM providers, monitoring procedures, the process for establishing legal responsibility, and information about sub-contractors.
States must use a pre-print format for required components of State Plans for ORR-funded refugee resettlement services and benefits prepared by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF).
States must submit by August 15 each year new or amended State Plan for the next Federal fiscal year. For previously approved plan, States must certify no later than October 31 each year that the approved State plan is current and continues in effect.
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed above has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance as required under section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA). This 30-day notice requests comments on the information collection requirements related to the proposed revision of an existing data collection regarding the information collection requirements in the Title III Supplemental Form to the Financial Status Report for all ACL/AoA Title III Grantees.
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by October 27, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information: by fax at 202.395.5806 or by email to
Jesse Moore at (202) 795-7578 or
In compliance with Section 44 U.S.C. 3507, ACL has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. ACL is requesting approval for three years of an extension of the currently approved data collection with modifications.
The Title III Supplemental Form to the Financial Status Report (SF-425) is used by ACL/AoA for all grantees to obtain a more detailed understanding of how projects funded under Title III of the Older Americans Act (OAA) of 1965, as amended, are being administered, and to ensure compliance with legislative requirements, pertinent Federal regulations and other applicable instructions and guidelines issued by the ACL. The level of data detail necessary is not available through the SF-425 form. The Supplemental Form provides necessary details on non-federal required match, administration expenditures, Older Relative Caregivers expenditures, and Long Term Care Ombudsman expenditures.
In addition to renewing OMB approval of this data collection, minor changes are being proposed to it to reflect changes in statutory language that occurred as a result of the 2016 reauthorization of the OAA. Specifically, the term “Grandparents Only” has been changed to “Older Relative Caregivers,” the new term in the OAA that describes this population of eligible service recipients. Similarly, the accompanying instructions for completing the Title III Supplemental Form to the Financial Status Report were also modified to include this same language. References in the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) have been updated addressing financial reporting requirements and non-substantive technical edits have been made to the instructions.
A 60-day notice was published in the
ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: 56 State Units on Aging (SUA) respond semi-annually which have an average estimated burden of 2 hours per grantee for a total of 112 hours per submission.
The proposed data collection tool may be found on the ACL Web site for review at:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; renewal of advisory committee.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the renewal of the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until July 7, 2019.
Authority for the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee will expire on July 7, 2017, unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.
Sara Anderson, Office of Device Evaluation, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G616, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7047,
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) pursuant to 45 CFR part 11 and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee is a non-discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner. The HHS Secretary and, by delegation, the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Health and Science and the Commissioner are charged with the administration of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and various provisions of the Public Health Service Act. The Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 amends the Public Health Service Act to establish national uniform quality and safety standards for mammography facilities. The Committee advises the HHS Secretary and, by delegation, the Commissioner in discharging their responsibilities with respect to establishing a mammography facilities certification program. The Committee shall advise FDA on:
• Developing appropriate quality standards and regulations for mammography facilities;
• Developing appropriate standards and regulations for bodies accrediting mammography facilities under this program;
• Developing regulations with respect to sanctions;
• Developing procedures for monitoring compliance with standards;
• Establishing a mechanism to investigate consumer complaints;
• Reporting new developments concerning breast imaging which should be considered in the oversight of mammography facilities;
• Determining whether there exists a shortage of mammography facilities in rural and health professional shortage areas and determining the effects of personnel on access to the services of such facilities in such areas;
• Determining whether there will exist a sufficient number of medical physicists after October 1, 1999; and
• Determining the costs and benefits of compliance with these requirements.
The Committee shall consist of a core of 15 members, including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among physicians, practitioners, and other health professionals, whose clinical practice, research specialization, or professional expertise includes a significant focus on mammography. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members of this Committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of voting members shall include at least four individuals from among national breast cancer or consumer health organizations with expertise in mammography, and at least two practicing physicians who provide mammography services. In addition to the voting members, the Committee shall include two nonvoting industry representatives who have expertise in mammography equipment. The Committee may include one technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests.
Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at
This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees,
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of non-competitive, HRSA-initiated, Secretary's Minority AIDS Initiative Fund (SMAIF) supplemental funding award: Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (RWHAP) AIDS Education and Training Centers (AETC) to the National Clinician Consultation Center (NCCC) at the University of California, San Francisco.
This non-competitive supplemental funding award will provide a phone consultation line staffed by clinicians dedicated to providing technical support and real-time clinical consultation to health professionals who treat people living with HIV (PLWH) who are coinfected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV).
Ms. Sherrillyn Crooks, Chief, HIV Education Branch, HIV/AIDS Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 09N09, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-7662, Email:
HRSA's SMAIF HIV/HCV initiatives seek to improve the prevention, screening, care, treatment, and cure of HCV in areas affected by HIV/HCV coinfection, particularly in disproportionately affected low-income, uninsured and underserved racial and ethnic minority populations in the United States. Despite the fact that HIV treatment outcomes continue to improve among PLWH, HIV/HCV coinfection remains a major concern with approximately one quarter of PLWH also coinfected with HCV.
The University of California, San Francisco's NCCC is funded under the RWHAP AETC Program, which comprises a network of three national centers and eight regional centers (with more than 130 local affiliated sites) that conduct targeted, multidisciplinary education, training, and technical assistance to health care providers who treat PLWH. The NCCC provides nationwide expert technical support, and clinical consultation services to health professionals who treat PLWH. Supplemental funding will enable the NCCC to leverage its existing infrastructure to add an HIV/HCV phone consultation line to deliver immediate clinical consultation and education services to RWHAP clinical providers funded through the SMAIF HIV/HCV initiatives and to clinical providers nationwide. Clinical providers will receive guidance based on up-to-date clinical HCV guidelines. Subject to the availability of funds and the recipient's satisfactory performance, up to $200,000 will also be awarded in FY18 (budget period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019) and FY19 (budget period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020).
Denial of this request will prevent RWHAP clinical providers from achieving the goals of the SMAIF HIV/HCV initiative and from gaining critical and immediate access to a national network of HIV/HCV resources, including clinical experts who would provide education and technical assistance that meets the unique needs of this initiative.
Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Health and Human Services.
Request for Comments on the Draft Strategic Plan FY 2018-2022.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is seeking public comment on its draft Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2018-2022.
Submit comments on or before October 26, 2017.
Written comments can be provided by email, fax or U.S. mail.
Sarah Potter, (202) 260-6518.
The draft Department of Health and Human Services Strategic Plan FY 2018-2022 is provided as part of the strategic planning process under the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRA-MA) (Pub. L. 111-352) to ensure that Agency stakeholders are given an opportunity to comment on this plan.
This document articulates how the Department will achieve its mission through five strategic goals. These five strategic goals are (1) Reform, Strengthen, and Modernize the Nation's Health Care System, (2) Protect the Health of Americans Where They Live, Learn, Work, and Play, (3) Strengthen the Economic and Social Well-Being of Americans across the Lifespan, (4) Foster Sound, Sustained Advances in Sciences, and (5) Promote Effective and Efficient Management and Stewardship. Each goal is supported by objectives and strategies.
The strategic planning consultation process is an opportunity for the Department to refine and strengthen the HHS Strategic Plan FY 2018-2022. The Department has made significant progress in its strategic and performance planning efforts. As we build on this progress we look forward to receiving your comments by October 26, 2017. The text of the draft HHS Strategic Plan FY 2018-2022 is available through the Department of Health and Human Services Web site at
For comparison purposes, the current HHS Strategic Plan FY 2014-2018 can be viewed at
For those who may not have Internet access, a hard copy can be requested from the contact point, Sarah Potter, (202) 260-6518.
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that the fifth and final meeting of the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee (2018 PAGAC or Committee) will be held. This meeting will be open to the public via videocast.
The meeting will be held on October 17, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. E.D.T. to 4:30 p.m. E.D.T., on October 18, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. E.D.T., on October 19, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. E.D.T., and on October 20, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. E.D.T. to 11:15 a.m. E.D.T.
The meeting will be accessible by videocast on the Internet.
Designated Federal Officer, 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, Richard D. Olson, M.D., M.P.H. and/or Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Katrina L. Piercy, Ph.D., R.D., Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), HHS; 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite LL-100; Rockville, MD 20852; Telephone: (240) 453-8280. Additional information is available at
The inaugural
It has been planned for the Committee to hold five meetings to accomplish its mission. The first meeting was held in July 2016, the second meeting was held in October 2016, the third meeting was held in March 2017, the fourth meeting was held in July 2017, and the fifth meeting will be held in October 2017. It is stipulated in the charter that the Committee will be terminated after delivery of its report to the Secretary of HHS or two years from the date the charter was filed, whichever comes first.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, U.S.C. Appendix 2, notice is hereby given that the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP) will hold a meeting that will be open to the public. Information about SACHRP and the full meeting agenda will be posted on the SACHRP Web site at:
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 17, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, October 18, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.
Fishers Lane Conference Center, Terrace Level, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Julia Gorey, J.D., Executive Director, SACHRP; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 240-453-8141; fax: 240-453-6909; email address:
Under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, SACHRP was established to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Assistant Secretary for Health, on issues and topics pertaining to or associated with the protection of human research subjects.
The Subpart A Subcommittee (SAS) was established by SACHRP in October 2006 and is charged with developing recommendations for consideration by SACHRP regarding the application of subpart A of 45 CFR part 46 in the current research environment.
The Subcommittee on Harmonization (SOH) was established by SACHRP at its July 2009 meeting and charged with identifying and prioritizing areas in which regulations and/or guidelines for human subjects research adopted by various agencies or offices within HHS would benefit from harmonization, consistency, clarity, simplification and/or coordination.
The SACHRP meeting will open to the public at 8:30 a.m., on Tuesday, October 17, 2017, followed by opening remarks from Dr. Jerry Menikoff, Director, Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and Dr. Stephen Rosenfeld, SACHRP Chair.
The SAS will present their recommendations regarding the revised Common Rule's (
The Wednesday, October 18, meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. with a presentation and discussion led by FDA staff on a recent FDA experience with IRB review under 21 CFR 50.54, and the lessons learned. Time is allotted for review of the previous day's recommendations. The meeting will adjourn at approximately 4:00 p.m., October 18, 2017.
Time for public comment sessions will be allotted both days. On-site registration is required for participation in the live public comment session. Note that public comment must be relevant to issues currently being addressed by the SACHRP. Individuals submitting written statements as public comment should email or fax their comments to SACHRP at
Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify one of the designated SACHRP points of contact at the address/phone number listed above at least one week prior to the meeting.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice and request for comments. Request for extension of approval.
In compliance the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Indian Health Service (IHS) invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the information collection Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0917-0036, “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This collection was developed as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery. This notice announces our intent to submit this collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval and solicits comments on specific aspects for the proposed information collection.
A copy of the draft supporting statement is available at
Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 27, 2017.
•
•
•
•
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be made available to the public by publishing them in the 30 day
To request additional information, please contact Evonne Bennett-Barnes,
The IHS is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies as required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) concerning the proposed collection of information to: (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; (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 collection techniques of other forms of information technology,
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the agency's services will be unavailable.
The agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies; Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and Information gathered will yield qualitative information; and
• The collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
Below are projected annual average estimates for the next three years:
There are no direct costs to respondents to report.
All written comments will be available for public inspection on
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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of approval of American Cargo Assurance, Pasadena, TX, as a commercial gauger.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that American Cargo Assurance, Pasadena, TX, has been approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 10, 2016.
As of August 10, 2016, American Cargo Assurance, Pasadena, TX, was reapproved as a Customs-approved commercial gauger. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2019.
Mr. Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that American Cargo Assurance, 1404 South Houston Rd., Suite B, Pasadena, TX 77502, has been approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. American Cargo Assurance, is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of approval of Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., Toa Baja, PR, as a commercial gauger.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., Toa Baja, PR, has been approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of September 15, 2016.
As of September 15, 2016, Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., Toa Baja, PR, was reapproved as a Customs-approved commercial gauger. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2019.
Mr. Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., Calle Gregorio Ledesma HMNN-55 URB., Levittown, Toa Baja, PR 00949, has been approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Altol Petroleum Products Services, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
Office of the 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:
Colette Pollard, 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. Pollard.
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
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:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
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:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in section A.
The
In addition, under 24 CFR 203.255(c) and (e), HUD conducts both pre- and post-endorsement reviews of loans submitted for FHA insurance by DE lenders. As part of those reviews, the Secretary is authorized to determine if there is any information indicating that any certification or required document is false, misleading, or constitutes fraud or misrepresentation on the part of any party, or that the mortgage fails to meet a statutory or regulatory requirement. In order to assist the Secretary with this directive, FHA requires that lenders self-report all findings of fraud and material misrepresentation, as well any material findings concerning the origination, underwriting, or servicing of the loan that the lender is unable to mitigate or otherwise resolve. The obligation to self-report these findings creates an additional information collection burden on DE lenders.
In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a Notice soliciting
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 collectio n 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:
Colette Pollard, 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. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
In addition, some information collected assists both HUD and State Agencies in locating manufactured homes with defects, which then would create the need for notification and/or correction by the manufacturer.
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:
Colette Pollard, 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. Pollard.
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:
Colette Pollard, 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. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
The information collection specifically focuses on documenting rehabilitation loan expenses, maintaining the repair escrow accounts and the use of FHA approved 203(k) consultants. This program does not operate independent of FHA's established process. The loan origination process and underwriting follows the same standards and systems as all 203(b) loans as documented in OMB Control Numbers 2502-0059 & 2502-0556. Per the existing collection 15,871 respondents are borrowers and lenders, including approximately 20 nonprofits, who annually apply for Standard 203(k) and Limited 203(k) loans the 203(k) program. Also, 1,939 consultants are on FHA's 203(k) Consultant Roster.
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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
September 20, 2017.
Fred Ruggles (202-205-3187), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
On June 30, 2017, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigations (82 FR 32376, July 13, 2017). Subsequently, the Department of Commerce extended the date for its final determinations in the investigations from no later than September 6, 2017 to no later than November 13, 2017 (82 FR 41609, September 1, 2017). The Commission, therefore, is revising its schedule to conform with Commerce's new schedule.
The Commission's new schedule for the investigations is as follows: The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is September 25, 2017; the Commission will make its final release of information on November 30, 2017; and final party comments are due on December 4, 2017. Final comments shall only concern information disclosed to the parties after they have filed their posthearing briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 207.30(b); the Commission has extended the page limit for such comments to not exceed 25 pages due to the particular circumstances of this proceeding.
For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Rescindment of Systems of Records Notices.
The system of records ITC-3 (Office of Inspector General Investigative Files (General)) contained records on individuals and contractors, who were the focus of an OIG investigation relating to the programs and operations of the Commission. The records were used to investigate and/or take other actions to address allegations of fraud, waste and abuse of a non-criminal nature by Commission employees or contractors.
The system of records ITC-4 (Office of Inspector General Investigative Files (Criminal)) contained records on individuals and contractors, who were the focus of an OIG criminal investigation relating to the programs and operations of the Commission. The records were used to investigate allegations of criminal violations by Commission employees or contractors.
Maintenance of these systems of records ended on or about March 1, 2007.
Written comments on the rescindment of these systems of records notices must be received by the Secretary to the Commission no later than October 27, 2017. The rescindment will become effective on that date unless otherwise published in the
You may submit comments, identified by docket number MISC-043, by any of the following methods:
Clara Kuehn, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, tel. 202-205-3012. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.
The Commission's Inspector General proposes to rescind these two systems of records notices because these systems of records no longer exist. When maintenance of these systems of records ended (on or about March 1, 2007), no records existed in either of these systems.
The Commission previously published notice of these systems of records at 71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of new and modified systems of records.
The Commission issues this notice to satisfy the Privacy Act's requirement to publish notice of the existence and character of records systems maintained by the Commission and of any new use or intended use of information in the Commission's systems of records.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) proposes to add the following four new systems of records: (1) Roster of Mediators. This system contains records of individuals selected as roster members to serve as potential mediators as part of the Commission's mediation program. Records in this system are used to identify potential mediators for participation in the Commission's mediation program. (2) Personnel Photograph Records. This system contains photographs of Commission personnel. Records in this system are used to enhance the security of the Commission's building, educate the public, assist Commission personnel in interfacing with customers and the public, and promote open and collaborative electronic communication with Commission personnel. (3) Employment Law Records. This system contains documents relating to employment law matters including adverse actions, grievances, unfair labor practice charges, civil actions against Commission employees in their official capacities, and employee claims. (4) Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Records. This system contains correspondence and other documents relating to FOIA and Privacy Act requests and administrative appeals.
The Commission proposes to revise the following thirteen existing systems of records: (1) Pay and Leave Records. This system contains payroll and personnel information. These records are used for the purposes of administering pay and leave, activity accounting, and budget preparation, and are used to prepare related reports to other Federal agencies. (2) Grievance Records. This system contains records of grievances filed by Commission employees under 5 CFR part 771, 5 U.S.C. 7121, or under negotiated grievance procedures. (3) Telephone Call Detail Records. This system contains records relating to the location of Commission telephones, the assignment of telephone numbers to employees, the use of Commission mobile devices, and the use of Commission telephones to place long-distance telephone calls or facsimile transmissions. (4) Security Access Records. This system contains records relating to the assignment and use of electronic security keys at the Commission and records identifying visitors to the Commission building. (5) Personnel Security Investigative Files. This system contains personnel security investigative records pertaining to current and former employees, applicants for employment including interns and volunteers, and contractors, subcontractors, and consultants. The records in this system are used to make national security, suitability, fitness, and HSPD-12 credentialing determinations; provide a current record of Commission employees with security clearance(s); and provide access cards and keys to Commission buildings and offices. (6) Library Circulation Records. Records in this system pertain to individuals with borrowing privileges, who have borrowed materials from the Main Library. Records are used to locate Main Library materials in circulation and to control and inventory borrowed materials. (7) Parking and Mass Transit Subsidy Records. Records in this system pertain to individuals who participate in the Commission mass transit and car pool subsidy programs. These records are used to allocate and control agency-subsidized parking spaces and mass transit subsidies, assist in creating car pools, and ensure that employees qualify for subsidized parking spaces or mass transit subsidies. (8) Congressional Correspondence Records. Records in this system pertain to Members of Congress and their constituents. These records are used to respond to Congressional inquiries and inform
Written comments must be received by the Secretary to the Commission no later than October 27, 2017. The proposed revision to the Commission's systems of records will become effective on that date unless otherwise published in the
You may submit comments, identified by docket number MISC-043, by any of the following methods:
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
Clara Kuehn, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, tel. 202-205-3012. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.
Under the Privacy Act of 1974 (“Privacy Act”), 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission proposes to add the description of four new systems of records and revise the descriptions of thirteen existing systems of records. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the actions proposed in this notice.
The Commission proposes to add a new system of records entitled ITC-17 (Roster of Mediators). The Commission has established a mediation program for disputes brought pursuant to section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337). The Commission will maintain a list of potential mediators and information on potential candidates which may include home and business addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers, electronic mail addresses, and certain financial information (for determinations concerning potential conflicts of interest).
The Commission proposes to add a new system of records entitled ITC-18 (Personnel Photograph Records). The Commission takes photographs of Commission personnel, including employees, Commissioners, and administrative law judges for such purposes as providing information to the public, promoting open and collaborative communication with Commission personnel, and ensuring physical security of agency office space. These photographs are maintained together with the names and titles of the pictured individuals.
The Commission proposes to add a new system of records entitled ITC-19 (Employment Law Records). This system will cover records maintained mostly in the Office of the General Counsel that pertain to employment law matters, including adverse actions, grievances, unfair labor practice charges, civil actions against Commission employees in their official capacities, and Equal Employment Opportunity and other employee claims.
The Commission proposes to add a new system of records entitled ITC-20 (Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Records). This system will cover records pertaining to FOIA and Privacy Act requests and administrative appeals. These records are used to monitor, process, and track requests and appeals made under those statutes; support litigation arising from such requests and appeals; assign, process, and track FOIA workloads; and provide management information reports.
The Commission proposes to revise the system of records entitled ITC-1 (Pay & Leave Records) to clarify the location of the system, and to provide additional detail on the pay and personnel information contained in the system, such as by adding references to fitness service use logs and relocation expense authorizations and amounts. The Commission is also clarifying that the purpose of the system includes not only administering pay and leave, activity accounting, and budget preparation, but also preparing related reports to other Federal agencies. The Commission is also adding routine uses for the disclosure of information from this system in accordance with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, for unemployment and health insurance purposes, for the collection of debts owed to the Federal Government, and to another Federal agency to which an employee has transferred.
The Commission proposes to revise the system of records entitled ITC-2 (Grievance Records) by expanding the purposes of the system to include ensuring consistent treatment of similarly situated individuals. As revised, this system will cover records of grievances filed by employees that are
The Commission proposes to revise the system of records entitled ITC-5 (Telephone Call Detail Records) to include records pertaining to the assignment and use of Commission mobile devices and to update the description of the retrievability of records in the system to include by name and mobile device number.
The Commission proposes to revise the system of records entitled ITC-6 (Security Access Records) to clarify the location of the system, to provide additional detail on the security key records contained in the system, to update references to visitor records contained in the system, and to clarify that the purpose of the system is to restrict and authorize physical access to Commission facilities.
The Commission proposes to revise the system of records entitled ITC-7 (Personnel Security Investigative Files) to clarify the location of the system, to expand the purpose of the system to include making suitability, fitness, and HSPD-12 credentialing determinations, to expand the categories of covered individuals to include interns and volunteers, to provide additional detail on the categories of records in the system, to expand the description of the retrievability of records to include by Social Security number, and to add routine uses for disclosures to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to enable intelligence agencies to carry out their responsibilities under certain authorities.
The Commission proposes to revise the system of records entitled ITC-8 (Library Circulation Records) to cover additional individuals with borrowing privileges from the Main Library, such as contractors.
The Commission proposes to revise the system of records entitled ITC-9 (Parking and Mass Transit Subsidy Records) to clarify the location of the system, to provide additional detail on the categories of records contained in the system, and to expand the description of the retrievability of records in the system to include by parking permit number.
The Commission proposes to revise the system of records entitled ITC-11 (Congressional Correspondence Records) to clarify the location of the system, to add constituents of Members of Congress to the categories of individuals covered by the system, to clarify the categories of records contained in the system, to expand the description of the retrievability of records in the system to include by the name of the Chairman of a Congressional committee or subcommittee, to add a routine use for disclosure to the National Archives and Records Administration or General Services Administration for records management purposes, to add a routine use for disclosure to agency contractors and others engaged to assist the agency with an activity necessitating access to this system, and to add a routine use for disclosure to the public through the Commission's Web site.
The Commission proposes to rename the system of records ITC-12 (Computer Access Records) to ITC-12 (System Access Records). The Commission proposes to revise this system of records to clarify the categories of covered individuals and to add additional details to the categories and description of the retrievability of records in the system to reflect current practice.
The Commission proposes to revise the system of records entitled ITC-13 (Administrative Protective Order Breach and Related Records) to clarify the location of the system, to expand the description of the retrievability of records in the system to include by administrative protective order breach identification number, and to modify an existing routine use to permit disclosure of information to other persons subject to the same breach investigation of whether there is good cause to sanction persons under 19 CFR 201.15.
The Commission proposes to revise the system of records entitled ITC-14 (Import and Export Records) to include in the categories of information in the system that some contact information is for residential addresses of individuals and add routine uses for disclosure to representatives of parties to investigations under judicial protective order and to certain tribunals and U.S. courts.
The Commission proposes to revise the system of records entitled ITC-15 (Telecommuting Program Records) to clarify the location of the system and the categories of records in the system.
The Commission proposes to revise the system of records entitled ITC-16 (Emergency Notification Records) to clarify the categories of records in the system.
The Commission proposes to revise all systems of records to add data elements provided for in the Document Drafting Handbook of the Office of the Federal Register, to provide more detail on the safeguards used to protect information, and to make additional clarifying changes. Where necessary, addresses are being changed to reflect the Commission's current organization and its arrangements with contractors, records retention and disposal practices are being updated, and a requirement is being removed so that a requester will no longer need to provide a date of birth when making an inquiry or requesting an amendment to a record in any system.
By Memorandum M-07-16, “Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information,” OMB called on agencies to publish a routine use for the disclosure of information in connection with response and remedial efforts in the event of a data breach. On January 3, 2017, OMB issued Memorandum M-17-12, which updated breach notification policies and guidelines, rescinded M-07-16, and directed agencies to include two routine uses in each agency SORN to facilitate agencies' response to breaches of their own records and to ensure that agencies are able to disclose records that may reasonably be needed by another agency in responding to a breach. These new routine uses will serve to protect the interest of the individual or individuals whose information is at issue by allowing agencies to take steps to facilitate a timely and effective response to the breach. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to add these new routine uses, applicable to all Commission systems of records, to authorize the disclosure, in the event of a suspected or confirmed breach, to certain agencies, entities, and persons of information maintained in the systems.
The Commission also proposes to clarify that an existing routine use, applicable to many Commission systems of records, permits disclosure of records to and use by the Department of Justice in litigation under certain circumstances.
The Commission also proposes to clarify that an existing general routine use permitting disclosure to agency contractors and Federal agencies providing services to the Commission also allows disclosure when information security services are being provided.
Attachment A is a list of the general routine uses applicable to more than one system of records.
Attachment B is an updated list of the government-wide systems of records, noticed by other agencies, applicable to the Commission.
As required by subsection 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a(r)), the proposed revisions will be reported to the Office of Management and Budget, the Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Chair of the Committee on Homeland
ITC-1 Pay and Leave Records.
None.
1. Payroll, attendance, leave, retirement, and benefits records for current employees are located in the Office of Human Resources, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The Commission has an interagency agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Interior Business Center (DOI/IBC), 7301 West Mansfield Avenue, MS-D-2210, Lakewood, CO 80235-2230, to maintain electronic personnel information and perform payroll and personnel processing activities for its employees.
2. Records relating to the Health and Fitness Program are maintained in the Office of Security and Support Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
3. Records relating to relocation expenses are maintained in the Office of Finance, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
4. Records relating to the Student Loan Reimbursement Program and waivers of recovery of overpayment debt are maintained in the Office of Human Resources, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
5. Records relating to the Labor Cost Code Database (Activity Accounting) are maintained by the Office of Finance, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
6. Retired Personnel Files are located at the National Archives and Records Administration National Personnel Records Center (Civilian Personnel Records Center), 111 Winnebago Street, St. Louis, MO 63118.
Duplicate systems may exist, in part, for administrative purposes in the office to which the employee is assigned.
For Health and Fitness Program Reimbursement Claims, Director, Office of Security and Support Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. For relocation expenses and Labor Cost Code Database (Activity Accounting), Director, Office of Finance, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
For all other payroll and leave records, including Student Loan Reimbursement Program Claims and waivers of recovery of overpayment debt, Director, Office of Human Resources, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: 5 U.S.C. Chapters 53, 55, 61, and 63; and Executive Order 9397.
These records are used for the purposes of administering pay and leave, activity accounting, and budget preparation; and to prepare related reports to other Federal agencies.
All current and former Commission employees.
This system contains payroll and personnel information. This includes information such as: Name; title; date of birth; home address; Social Security number; telephone number; W-2 address; grade; employing organization; timekeeper number; salary; pay plan; number of hours worked; leave accrual rate, usage, and balances; compensatory time; credit hours; activity accounting reports; Civil Service Retirement and Federal Retirement System contributions; FICA withholdings; Federal, State, and local tax withholdings; Federal Employee's Group Life Insurance withholdings; Federal Employee's Health Benefits withholdings; charitable deductions; allotments to financial organizations; levy, garnishment, and salary and administrative offset documents; savings bonds allotments; union and management association dues withholding allotments; Combined Federal Campaign and other allotment authorizations; direct deposit information; information on the leave transfer program; tax fringe benefits; health and fitness program designation and cost; fitness program reimbursement amounts; fitness services use logs; student loan lenders' names and addresses; student loan account numbers; student loan account balances; and relocation expense authorizations and amounts. The payroll, retirement and leave records described in this notice form a part of the information contained in the DOI/IBC integrated Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS). Personnel records contained in the FPPS are covered under the government-wide system of records notice published by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM/GOVT-1).
Information in this system is obtained from official personnel documents, the individual to whom the record pertains, and Commission officials responsible for pay, leave, relocation expense justifications and authorizations, and activity reporting requirements.
General Routine Uses A-K and M-N apply to this system.
Data in this system may be transmitted electronically by the Commission to the DOI/IBC, which provides payroll and personnel processing services under an interagency agreement. The Commission and the U.S. Department of the Interior may disclose relevant portions of records in this system as necessary to the following: (a) To the Treasury Department for issuance of pay checks; (b) to the Treasury Department for issuance of savings bonds; (c) to OPM for retirement, health, and life insurance purposes, and to carry out OPM's Government-wide personnel management functions; (d) to the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board with respect to Thrift Savings Fund contributions; (e) to the Social
Disclosures may be made from this system pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3).
Records at the Commission are maintained on paper in file folders and internal Commission electronic information systems. DOI/IBC maintains records in this system in accordance with an interagency agreement.
These records are retrieved by the name and Social Security number of the individuals on whom they are maintained.
Payroll and salary and administrative offset records are retained in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) General Records Schedule (GRS) 2 (various items). Records that have met required retention periods will be disposed of in accordance with NARA guidelines and Commission policy and procedures. Paper records are shredded, and records maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems are electronically removed. Commission electronic storage media that is no longer in service is purged in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines for media sanitization (NIST SP 800-88). DOI/IBC manages and disposes of Commission records in this system under the interagency agreement in accordance with this notice and applicable General Records Schedule 2 items.
IBC/DOI information systems hosting Commission data under the interagency agreement are compliant with Federal information technology (IT) security requirements, including assessment and authorization, and Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) reporting. On these systems, security controls (
At the Commission, access to the records in this system is limited to persons whose official duties require access, such as individuals who validate and certify employee timecards and personnel in the Office of Human Resources for personnel and payroll processing. Paper records in this system are maintained in a building with restricted public access, patrolled by guards. Both standard and electronic locks are used to restrict access. The paper records in this system are kept in limited access areas within the building, in locked file cabinets or in file cabinets in locked offices. Commission electronic information systems, like IBC/DOI systems, are subject to Federal IT security requirements. Electronic records in this system that are maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems may be accessed only by individuals whose official duties require access through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment; and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment; and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment; and
3. Signature.
None.
71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006).
ITC-2 Grievance Records.
None.
Office of Administrative Services and the office where the grievance originated, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
If the grievance is pending at or was never raised beyond the office level, the system manager is the head of the office; otherwise, the system manager is the Chief Administrative Officer, Office of Administration, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: 5 U.S.C. 7121; 5 CFR part 771.
These records are used to process grievances submitted by Commission employees for relief in a matter of concern or dissatisfaction which is subject to the control of agency management, to ensure consistent treatment of similarly situated individuals, and to provide individuals who submit grievances with a copy of their records in accordance with the grievance process.
All current and former Commission employees who have submitted grievances in accordance with part 771 of the regulations of the Office of Personnel Management (the “OPM”) (5 CFR part 771), under 5 U.S.C. 7121, or through a negotiated grievance procedure.
This system contains records of grievances filed by agency employees under part 771 of regulations issued by the OPM, under 5 U.S.C. 7121 or under negotiated grievance procedures. These case files contain all documents made part of the grievance files, including statements of witnesses, reports of interviews and hearings, examiner's findings and recommendations, a copy of the original and final decisions, and related correspondence and exhibits. The system includes files and records of internal grievance and arbitration systems established through negotiations with recognized labor organizations.
Information in this system of records is obtained from:
a. The individual filing the grievance;
b. The testimony of witnesses;
c. Agency and union officials; and
d. Related correspondence from organizations or persons.
General Routine Uses A-C and E-N apply to this system.
Information in this system may be disclosed as necessary to other Federal agencies or Federal contractors with statutory authority to assist in the collection of Commission debts.
Disclosures may be made from this system pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3).
These records are maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems and on paper in file folders.
These records are retrieved by the names of the individuals on whom they are maintained.
Records are retained in accordance with NARA GRS 1, item 30a: Administrative Grievance Files. Records that have met required retention periods will be disposed of in accordance with NARA guidelines and Commission policy and procedures. Paper records are shredded, and records maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems are electronically removed. Commission electronic storage media that is no longer in service is purged in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines for media sanitization (NIST SP 800-88).
Access to this system of records is limited to persons who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties, such as individuals involved in adjudicating grievances. Paper records in this system are maintained in locked file cabinets or file cabinets in locked offices. The file cabinets are maintained in a building with restricted public access, patrolled by guards. Both standard and electronic locks are used to restrict access. The electronic records in this system may only be accessed by authorized individuals through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment;
3. Approximate date of closing of the case (if applicable); and
4. Signature.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment;
3. Approximate date of closing of the case (if applicable); and
4. Signature.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment; and
3. Signature.
None.
71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006).
[Reserved]
[Reserved]
ITC-5 Telephone Call Detail Records.
None.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436; General Services Administration, 13221 Woodland Park Rd., Herndon, VA 22071; CenturyLink, Customer Service, DEPT COOR, 6000 Parkwood Place, Dublin, OH 43016; Verizon Wireless, P.O. Box 4003, Acworth, GA 30101.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: 19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(1)(A)(iii).
Records in this system are used to verify telephone and mobile device usage and resolve billing discrepancies so that telephone and mobile device bills can be paid. They may also be used to identify and seek reimbursement for unofficial calls, and as a basis for taking action when agency employees or other persons misuse or abuse Commission telephone or mobile device services.
All Commission employees and all contractors, sub-contractors, consultants and other individuals who (1) are assigned telephone numbers by the Commission and who make long-distance telephone calls or long-distance facsimile transmissions from or charged to the Commission telephone system or (2) are assigned Commission mobile devices and make calls from or charged to those devices.
This system contains records relating to use of Commission telephones to place long-distance telephone calls, including personal calls, or long-distance facsimile transmissions; records relating to use of Commission mobile devices; records indicating assignment of telephone numbers to employees; and records relating to location of telephones.
Information in this system is obtained from telephone/mobile device assignment records; call detail listings and electronic files from the telephone and mobile device service providers; supervisors' confirmation of employees' responsibility for calls; and certification of telephone/mobile device bills.
General Routine Uses A-C, E-I, and K-N apply to this system.
Relevant information in this system may be disclosed as necessary to other Federal agencies or Federal contractors with statutory authority to assist in the collection of Commission debts.
Disclosures may be made from this system pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3).
Records at the Commission are maintained on an internal Commission electronic information system.
These records are retrieved by name and/or telephone/mobile device number assigned to an individual, by date, number called, and city called.
Records are generally retained in accordance with NARA GRS 12, item 4: Telephone Use (Call Detail). Records that have met required retention periods will be disposed of in accordance with NARA guidelines and Commission policy and procedures. Records maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems are electronically removed. Commission electronic storage media that is no longer in service is purged in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines for media sanitization (NIST SP 800-88).
At the Commission, access to the records in this system is limited to persons whose official duties require access, such as individuals responsible for verifying telephone and mobile device usage. Electronic records in this system that are maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems may be accessed only by individuals whose official duties require access through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable);
3. Assigned telephone/mobile device number; and
4. Signature.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable);
3. Assigned telephone/mobile device number; and
4. Signature.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable);
3. Assigned telephone/mobile device number; and
4. Signature.
None.
71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006).
ITC-6 Security Access Records.
None.
Records covered by this system are maintained by a contractor at the contractor's site, Datawatch Systems, 4401 East West Highway, Suite 500, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Director, Office of Security and Support Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: 19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(1)(A)(iii).
These records are used to restrict and authorize physical access to Commission facilities. These records permit tracking of individual movements in circumstances such as when there has been a security breach or theft, to monitor access to restricted areas, and to verify time and attendance records of Commission employees to the extent permitted by applicable law and except as prohibited by Commission policy.
All Commission employees and all contractors, sub-contractors, consultants and other individuals who are assigned electronic security keys; all visitors to the Commission building.
This system contains records relating to the use of electronic security keys at the Commission, including records on which keys were used to gain or seek access to controlled areas, the time at which access was gained or sought, and the name and photograph of the individual assigned the key. This system also contains records identifying visitors to the Commission building, including the visitor's name, photograph, and expiration date of visitor's identification document (
Information in this system is obtained from the Commission's security contractor and from visitors to the Commission building.
General Routine Uses A-C, E-I, and K-N apply to this system.
Records are maintained on computer media (such as an electronic database) by a contractor.
The security key records are retrieved by area accessed, date and time of entry, key number, and name of individual. The visitor records may be retrieved by name and time of entry.
Records will be retained until the proposed records schedule authorizing the disposal of such records is approved by NARA.
The security key records can be accessed remotely through a Web site by Commission personnel with a need to know the information for performance of their duties, such as the personnel security officer. The visitor records can be accessed by Commission personnel with a need to know the information for performance of their duties, such as the personnel security officer. Access to the records is restricted to authorized personnel through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
None.
71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006).
ITC-7 Personnel Security Investigative Files.
None.
Office of Security and Support Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Director, Office of Security and Support Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: Executive Orders 10450, 12968, and 13526; 5 CFR parts 5, 731, 732, and 736; Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12, Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal employees and Contractors, August 27, 2004; 19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(1)(A)(iii).
Records in this system are used to: Make national security, suitability, fitness, and HSPD-12 credentialing
All current and former employees; all applicants for employment, including interns and volunteers; and contractors, subcontractors, and consultants.
This system contains records relating to adjudicative actions, determinations, and decisions on summary investigation packages and associated documentation from federal investigative organizations (
Information is obtained from the individual on whom record is maintained; Office of Personnel Management; and any contractor who has been retained by the Commission to conduct background investigations.
General Routine Uses A-D, E-K, and M-N apply to this system.
To a Federal, State, or local agency, or other appropriate entities or individuals, or through established liaison channels to selected foreign governments, in order to enable an intelligence agency to carry out its responsibilities under the National Security Act of 1947 as amended, the CIA Act of 1949 as amended, Executive Order 12333 or any successor order, applicable national security directives, or classified implementing procedures approved by the Attorney General and promulgated pursuant to such statutes, orders or directives.
Relevant information in this system may be disclosed as necessary to other Federal agencies or Federal contractors with statutory authority to assist in the collection of Commission debts.
Disclosures may be made from this system pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3).
These records are maintained on paper in file folders (until completion of any investigation and adjudication) and electronically on an internal Commission electronic information system.
These records are retrieved by name and Social Security number.
Records are retained in accordance with NARA GRS 18: Personnel Security Clearance Files. Records that have met required retention periods will be disposed of in accordance with NARA guidelines and Commission policy and procedures. Paper records are shredded, and records maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems are electronically removed. Commission electronic storage media that is no longer in service is purged in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines for media sanitization (NIST SP 800-88).
Access to the records in this system is limited to persons whose official duties require access such as the personnel security officer for personnel security investigations. Paper records are maintained in limited access areas in a building with restricted public access, patrolled by guards. Both standard and electronic locks are used to restrict access. Electronic records in this system may be accessed only by individuals whose official duties require access through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(5) and (k)(6), this system of records is exempted from (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G)-(I) and (f) of the Privacy Act. These exemptions are established in the Commission rules at 19 CFR 201.32.
71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006); 72 FR 35068 (June 26, 2007).
ITC-8 Library Circulation Records.
None.
Progressive Technology Federal Systems Inc., 11501 Huff Court, North Bethesda, MD 20895.
Chief Librarian, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: 40 U.S.C. 524(a); 19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(1)(A)(iii).
Records in this system are used to locate Main Library materials in circulation and to control and inventory Main Library materials loaned.
All Commission employees, contractors, and other individuals with borrowing privileges, who have borrowed materials from the Main Library.
This system contains records relating to titles and other identifying data on materials borrowed from the Main Library, and the name, agency, office, office telephone number, and office room number of borrower, and the scheduled return date for each item borrowed.
Information is obtained from the individual who borrows materials, from Main Library records on materials borrowed, and from the Commission telephone directory.
General Routine Uses E, H, I, and L-N apply to this system.
Relevant information in this system may be disclosed as necessary to other Federal agencies or Federal contractors with statutory authority to assist in the collection of Commission debts.
Disclosures may be made from this system pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3).
These records are maintained on computer media by an outside contractor.
These records are retrieved by name, by title of item borrowed, and by call number.
These records are maintained until library staff electronically remove an employee-borrower entry from the system, which is done when the individual in question is no longer employed or working at the Commission. However, a borrowed item is electronically removed from a borrower's entry when the item is returned to the library.
The electronic records in this system can be accessed remotely through a Web site by Commission personnel with a need to know the information for performance of their duties, such as library staff. Access to the system is restricted to authorized personnel through the use of safeguards such as passwords. Individual borrowers may establish a login and password that permits access only to their own records.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment; and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment; and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment; and
3. Signature.
None.
71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006); 72 FR 35068 (June 26, 2007).
ITC-9 Parking and Mass Transit Subsidy Records.
None.
Office of Security and Support Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436; Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 600 5th Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Director, Office of Security and Support Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: 19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(1)(A)(iii); 41 CFR 102-74; 5 U.S.C. 7905.
Records in this system are used to allocate and control agency-subsidized parking spaces and mass transit subsidies, assist in creating car pools, and insure that employees qualify for subsidized parking spaces or mass transit subsidies.
All current and former Commission employees and other authorized individuals who participate in the Commission mass transit and car pool subsidy programs.
This system contains records relating to participant's name, agency, office room number and phone number, name of participant's supervisor, participant's home address, automobile type (make and model) and license number, permit number, participant's length of government service and type of work schedule, participant's type of transportation used for commuting, carpool payment amounts and names of others in carpool, mass transit benefit amounts, assigned SmarTrip card number and card usage information (
Information is obtained from the individual to whom the records pertain.
General Routine Uses A-C, E-I, K, and L-N apply to this system.
Relevant information in this system may be disclosed as necessary to other Federal agencies or Federal contractors with statutory authority to assist in the collection of Commission debts.
Disclosures may be made from this system pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3).
Records at the Commission are maintained on paper in file folders and on an internal Commission electronic information system.
These records are retrieved by applicant name or, in the case of parking records, space assignment or parking permit number.
Records are retained in accordance with NARA GRS 9, item 7: Federal Employee Transportation Subsidy Records. Records that have met required retention periods will be disposed of in accordance with NARA guidelines and Commission policy and procedures. Paper records are shredded, and records maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems are electronically removed. Commission electronic storage media that is no longer in service is purged in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines for media sanitization (NIST SP 800-88).
At the Commission, access to records in this system is limited to persons who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties, such as persons administering the parking and mass transit subsidy programs. Paper records in this system are maintained in locked file cabinets behind locked doors in a building with restricted public access, patrolled by guards. Both standard and electronic locks are used to restrict access. The electronic records in this system may only be accessed by authorized individuals through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
None.
71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006).
[Reserved].
ITC-11 Congressional Correspondence Records.
None.
Office of External Relations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Copies of these records may exist in other Commission offices, located at the same street address, with information pertaining to the correspondence; copies of records in this system concerning inquiries relating to specific Commission investigations may be included in the administrative record of such investigations.
Director, Office of External Relations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any
Records in this system are used to respond to Congressional inquiries and inform Congress about Commission activities.
Members of Congress, and their constituents.
This system contains records relating to the name, address and title of, and referrals of constituents' inquiries, from Members of Congress and responses thereto, and any other personal information in correspondence with Members of Congress and Congressional committees and/or subcommittees.
Information from this system comes from Members of Congress, their staffs, and individuals on whose behalf there have been Congressional inquiries.
Records in this system may be made available to the public through the Commission's Web site. General routine uses A, D-H, and K-N apply to this system.
Referral may be made to other Federal, State, or local government agencies for appropriate action when the matter complained of or inquired about comes within the jurisdiction of such agency.
These records are maintained on paper in file folders and on internal Commission electronic information systems.
These records are retrieved by name of Member of Congress or by name of the Chairman of a Congressional committee or subcommittee.
Records are generally retained in accordance with USITC records schedule NC1-081-78-001, item F21: Correspondence with Members of Congress. This USITC records schedule is being revised to change the retention period to two years after the Member of Congress departs from office. The retention period for item F21, NC1-081-78-001 remains in effect until the revision is approved by NARA. Records that have met required retention periods will be disposed of in accordance with NARA guidelines and Commission policy and procedures. Paper records are shredded, and records maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems are electronically removed. Commission electronic storage media that is no longer in service is purged in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines for media sanitization (NIST SP 800-88).
Access to the records is limited to persons whose official duties require access, such as individuals who prepare responses to Congressional inquiries. Paper records in this system are maintained in a building with restricted public access, patrolled by guards. Both standard and electronic locks may be used to restrict access. The paper records in this system are kept in limited access areas within the building. Electronic records in this system may only be accessed by authorized individuals through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
None.
71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006).
ITC-12 System Access Records.
None.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: 19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(1)(A)(iii).
These records are used to permit tracking of individual computer access to prevent improper use of Commission equipment. These records also are used as a tool for investigation in the event of an unauthorized intrusion into the Commission's information systems. Additionally, these records are used for statistical analysis of computer usage.
All current and former Commission employees and all current and former contractors, sub-contractors, consultants, and other individuals who use Commission computers or visit the Commission's internet and intranet Web sites.
This system contains information pertaining to a computer user's access to
Information in this system comes from the Commission's information technology systems such as web servers and firewall devices.
General Routine Uses A-C and E-N apply to this system.
The System Access Records are maintained on Commission servers, electronic tape, magnetic disk, or other data storage media.
The System Access Records are retrieved by searching for specific data elements (such as user name or Internet Protocol (IP) address) on the electronic tape or magnetic disk or other data storage media.
Records are retained in accordance with NARA GRS 3.2, items 030 and 031: System Access Records. Records that have met required retention periods will be disposed of in accordance with NARA guidelines and Commission policy and procedures. Records maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems are electronically removed. Commission electronic storage media that is no longer in service is purged in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines for media sanitization (NIST SP 800-88).
The records are maintained in secure locations with access limited to persons whose official duties require access such as network administrators. The computer files can only be accessed by authorized individuals through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable);
3. Signature.
None.
71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006).
ITC-13 Administrative Protective Order Breach and Related Records.
None.
Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, and the Office of the General Counsel.
Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: 19 U.S.C. 1337, 1677f, 2252, 2451, and 2451a.
Records in this system are used to determine whether a person has breached an administrative protective order and/or should be sanctioned.
Persons subject to investigations of alleged breaches of administrative protective orders and/or investigations of whether there is good cause to sanction persons under section 201.15 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.15).
This system contains records relating to a person's name, firm, address, the basis for the investigation, the Commission's determinations with respect to the facts of the investigation, and any sanctions or other actions taken in response to the agency's determinations.
Information in this system comes from the individual on whom the record is maintained and investigative records compiled by Commission staff.
General Routine Uses A-C, E-K, and M-N apply to this system.
Relevant information in this system may be disclosed to the public as necessary where the Commission determines that a public sanction is warranted or where the Commission determines that such disclosure is necessary to facilitate the recovery of business proprietary information or confidential business information which has been disclosed to unauthorized persons.
Information from this system of records concerning one person may be disclosed to other persons subject to the same Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) breach investigation, to other persons subject to the same breach investigation of whether there is good cause to sanction persons under section
These records are maintained on paper in file folders and on internal Commission electronic information systems.
These records are retrieved by name and APO breach identification number.
Records are retained in accordance with USITC records schedule N1-081-97-001, items 1a and 1b: Files maintained by the Office of the Secretary on Investigations of Possible Violations of Administrative Protective Orders and Commission Rules. Records that have met required retention periods will be disposed of in accordance with NARA guidelines and Commission policy and procedures. Paper records are shredded, and records maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems are electronically removed. Commission electronic storage media that is no longer in service is purged in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines for media sanitization (NIST SP 800-88).
Access to this system of records is limited to persons who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties, such as Commission employees conducting APO breach investigations. Paper records in this system are maintained in locked offices or in limited access areas in a building with restricted public access, patrolled by guards. Both standard and electronic locks may be used to restrict access. The electronic records in this system may only be accessed by authorized individuals through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish their full name and signature for their records to be located and identified.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish their full name and signature for their records to be located and identified.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish their full name and signature for their records to be located and identified.
None.
71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006); 72 FR 35068 (June 26, 2007).
ITC-14 Import and Export Records.
None.
Office of Operations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Chief of the Statistical and Data Services Division, Office of Analysis and Research Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: 19 U.S.C. 1330-1335, 1337, 1671
Records in this system are used to conduct statutorily mandated investigations and studies, such as antidumping, countervailing duty, global safeguard, and intellectual property-related investigations and industry and economic analysis.
Individuals importing to and/or exporting from the United States, and individuals producing articles for import and/or export.
The system contains records relating to an importer's, exporter's, or producer's name, organization, title or position, business role, address, telephone number, electronic mail address, Web site address, and Dun's number, as well as quantity and value information on imports and exports. Some contact information is for the homes of individuals.
Information is obtained from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other agencies that collect the information.
General Routine Uses A-C, E-I, K, and M-N apply to this system.
Records in this system may be disclosed as necessary to the Office of the United States Trade Representative and other agencies in safeguard and intellectual-property related investigations.
Records in this system may be disclosed as necessary to U.S. Customs and Border Protection in intellectual-property and import injury investigations in accordance with statutory authority to facilitate that agency's fraud investigations and administration of entry exclusions.
Records in this system may be disclosed as necessary to representatives of parties to investigations under administrative protective order and/or judicial protective order.
Records in this system may be publicly disclosed as necessary in aggregated form that is not individually identifiable.
Records in this system may be disclosed as necessary to North American Free Trade Agreement panels and other tribunals, and U.S. courts reviewing trade remedy investigations.
These records are maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems and in hard copies in internal Commission offices.
These records are retrieved by name.
Records are generally retained in accordance with USITC records schedule N1-081-03-1, item B1 (Import Injury Investigation Case Files), item B2 (Research Program Case Files), and item B3 (Intellectual Property-Based Import Investigations). Retention periods may be subject to interagency agreements. Records that have met required retention periods will be disposed of in accordance with NARA guidelines and Commission policy and procedures. Paper records are shredded, and records maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems are electronically removed. Commission electronic storage media that is no longer in service is purged in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines for media sanitization (NIST SP 800-88).
Disposal procedures for records in this system shall comply with requirements in applicable interagency agreements.
Access to this system of records is limited to persons who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties, such as individuals participating in certain Commission statutory investigations. Safeguard procedures for records in this system shall comply with requirements in applicable interagency agreements. Paper records in this system are maintained in limited access spaces in locked offices in a building with restricted public access, patrolled by guards. Both standard and electronic locks are used to restrict access. The electronic records in this system may only be accessed by authorized individuals through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
None.
71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006).
ITC-15 Telecommuting Program Records.
None.
Records relating to special circumstances telework requests are located in the Office of Human Resources and other telecommuting program records are located in the Office of Security and Support Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Director, Office of Security and Support Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: 19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(1)(A)(iii); Pub. L. 106-346, § 359, 114 Stat. 1356, 1356A-36 (2000).
Records in this system are used to administer the agency's telecommuting program. They may also be used to monitor employee compliance with the agency's telecommuting procedures.
All current and former Commission employees and other authorized individuals who participate in the Commission telecommuting program.
This system contains records relating to a person's name, title, office, supervisor, electronic mail address, telephone number, and alternate duty station address (which is often a home address). The telecommuting program records in this system do not include time and attendance records otherwise covered by ITC-1 (Pay and Leave Records).
Information is obtained from the individual to whom the records pertain.
General Routine Uses A-C and E-N apply to this system.
Relevant information in this system may be disclosed as necessary to the United States Congress in a form that does not identify covered individuals.
These records are maintained on paper in file folders and on internal Commission electronic information systems.
These records are retrieved by name.
Records are retained in accordance with NARA GRS-1, item 42: Alternate Worksite Records. Records that have met required retention periods will be disposed of in accordance with NARA guidelines and Commission policy and procedures. Paper records are shredded, and records maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems are electronically removed. Commission electronic storage media
Access to records in this system is limited to persons whose official duties require access, such as Commission personnel who approve telecommute agreements. The Office of Human Resources maintains paper records pertaining to special circumstances telecommute requests in a locked filing cabinet in a locked room in a building with restricted public access, patrolled by guards. Both standard and electronic locks are used to restrict access. The electronic records in this system may only be accessed by authorized individuals through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
None.
71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006).
ITC-16 Emergency Notification Records.
None.
The various offices within the U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Director, Office of Human Resources, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: 19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(1)(A)(iii) and 44 U.S.C. 3101.
Records are maintained in this system for the purpose of notifying and identifying employees or their designees under emergency conditions.
All current Commission employees.
This system contains records relating to a person's name, title, office, home address, office and home electronic mail addresses, and office and personal telephone numbers, as well as the name, address, and telephone number of the employee's designated emergency contact.
Information is obtained from the individual to whom the records pertain.
General Routine Uses A-C and E-N apply to this system.
These records are maintained on paper in file folders in internal Commission offices, on Commission mobile devices, and on internal Commission electronic information systems.
These records are retrieved by name.
Emergency Notification Records are retained by the Commission until the proposed records schedule authorizing the disposal of such records is approved by NARA.
Access to records in this system is limited to persons whose official duties require access, including individuals (such as supervisors) who are responsible for contacting employees in an emergency. Paper records in this system are maintained in limited access areas in a building with restricted public access, patrolled by guards. Both standard and electronic locks are used to restrict access. Electronic records in this system may only be accessed by authorized individuals through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
None.
71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006); 72 FR 35068 (June 26, 2007).
ITC-17 Roster of Mediators.
None.
Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: 19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(1)(A)(iii); 5 U.S.C. 572-574.
Records in this system are used to identify potential mediators for participation in the Commission's mediation program.
Individuals selected as roster members to serve as potential mediators as part of the Commission's mediation program.
This system contains records of individuals, including their name, organization, business or home address, telephone number, facsimile number, electronic mail address, and financial or business interests.
Information in this system comes from the individual to whom the record pertains.
The name of the mediator and brief biographical information will be posted on the Commission's mediation Web page, and also may be published in the
These records are maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems.
These records are retrieved by name.
USITC will propose a records schedule authorizing the disposition of these records. Records are retained by the Commission until the proposed records disposition schedule is approved by NARA.
Access to this system of records is limited to persons who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties, such as individuals in the Office of the Secretary involved in the mediator selection process and to counsel subject to a confidentiality agreement. Electronic records in this system may only be accessed by authorized individuals through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
None.
None.
ITC-18 Personnel Photograph Records.
None.
Office of External Relations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, and other offices in the U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
For Commissioner and administrative law judge portraits: Director of External Relations, Office of External Relations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436;
For employee photographs: Chief Administrative Officer, Office of Administration, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: 19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(1)(A)(iii).
These records are used for the purposes of enhancing the security of the Commission's building by familiarizing Commission staff with the identities and appearance of Commission personnel, educating the public, assisting Commission personnel in interfacing with customers and the public, and promoting open and collaborative electronic communication with Commission personnel.
Commission personnel, including employees and contractors.
This system contains photographs of Commission personnel.
Information in this system is obtained from the individual to whom the record pertains.
General Routine Uses A-L and M-N apply to this system. Records in this system can be accessed and publicly disclosed to assist the Commission in its relations with its customers and the public. To promote open electronic communication with Commission personnel, records in this system may be accessed and emailed by users of the Commission's email system, and may be further distributed by any recipient.
These records are maintained in print, as photographic negatives, on computer media (
These records are retrieved by the name or identification number of the individuals on whom they are maintained.
Records are retained in accordance with (a) USITC records schedule NC1-081-78-001, item B9: Photographs and Biographies of Commissioners and (b) NARA GRS 21, item 2: Personnel Identification or Passport Photographs. Records that have met required retention periods will be disposed of in accordance with NARA guidelines and Commission policy and procedures. Photographs of personnel maintained in print are shredded, and records maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems are electronically removed. Commission electronic storage media that is no longer in service is purged in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines for media sanitization (NIST SP 800-88). Commissioner portraits are permanent records. These records, in any format, are transferred to the National Archives five years after the Commissioner leaves the Commission.
These records are maintained in offices in a building with restricted public access, patrolled by guards. Both standard and electronic locks are used to restrict access. The records in this system are kept in limited access areas within the offices. The paper files are maintained in secure file cabinets or rooms, and access is limited to persons whose official duties require access, such as the Commission's public affairs officer for purposes of public education. The computer files can be accessed only by authorized individuals through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment; and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment; and
3. Signature.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment; and
3. Signature.
None.
None.
ITC-19 Employment Law Records.
None.
Office of the General Counsel and other Commission offices, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: 44 U.S.C. 3101; 19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(1)(A)(iii).
The Office of the General Counsel provides legal representation to Commission management in all administrative matters including, but not limited to, adverse actions, grievances, EEO, and unfair labor practices; represents the Commission and its employees in district court actions brought against them for acts taken in the course of official duties; and represents the Commission in other actions in which its interests are involved. Effective representation in such matters requires that records be retrievable by individual identifiers.
Individuals who have submitted grievances (in accordance with part 771 of the regulations of the Office of Personnel Management (the “OPM”) (5 CFR part 771), under 5 U.S.C. 7121, or through a negotiated grievance procedure), initiated EEO complaints, or initiated administrative proceedings or civil litigation against the Commission and/or or its personnel; individuals who have provided information, testimony, affidavits, or declarations concerning such matters; Commission attorneys assigned to such matters.
This system contains documents relating to employment law matters. Such matters include adverse actions, grievances, unfair labor practice charges, civil actions against Commission employees in their official capacities, and Equal Employment Opportunity and other employee claims. Documents contained in the system include names of persons involved and Commission attorneys handling the matter, correspondence, internal reports and related documents concerning the merits, attorney notes and recommendations; records on actions taken by the Commission giving rise to appeals, attorney notes, recommendations and strategy for defending appeals; documents submitted or filed by plaintiffs/grievants/complaints in civil actions or administrative proceedings against the Commission, such as complaints, grievances, unfair labor practice claims, motions and briefs; documents submitted by the Commission to defend or respond, such as answers to complaints, motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, replies to administrative complaints, grievances, or unfair labor practice claims; administrative determinations at issue; discovery and investigatory materials such as witness statements, reports of interviews, attorney notes, affidavits, declarations, correspondence, records, exhibits, and other documentary evidence; litigation materials, such as legal memoranda, attorney notes and recommendations, hearing transcripts, and related correspondence and exhibits; and final judgments, orders, decisions, decrees, and settlement agreements.
Information in this system of records is obtained from:
a. Plaintiffs, grievants, complainants, and aggrieved individuals;
b. Current and former Commission employees and officials;
c. Statements of witnesses and parties;
d. Transcripts of hearings, depositions, and court proceedings;
e. Work product of Commission attorneys and their assistants.
General Routine Uses A-C, E-K, and M-N apply to this system.
Information in this system may be disclosed to any federal, state or local agency, organization or individual to the extent necessary to obtain information or witness cooperation if there is reason to believe the recipient possesses information related to the matter.
Information in this system may be disclosed to an actual or potential party to litigation or the party's authorized representative for the purpose of negotiation or discussion of such matters as settlement or informal discovery proceedings.
Information in this system may be disclosed as necessary to other Federal agencies or Federal contractors with statutory authority to assist in the collection of Commission debts.
Disclosures may be made from this system pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3).
These records are maintained on an internal Commission electronic information system and on paper in file folders.
These records are retrieved by the names of the grievant, complainant, plaintiff, litigant, or aggrieved individual, by the caption or forum of the related civil action or administrative proceeding, or by the name of the Commission attorney handling the matter. Affidavits, declarations, testimony, witness statements, and similar materials may be retrieved by the names of any concerned indivSAFEiduals.
Records are retained in accordance with USITC records schedule N1-081-06-001, item C1: Litigation Case Files. Records that have met required retention periods will be disposed of in accordance with NARA guidelines and Commission policy and procedures. Paper records are shredded, and records maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems are electronically removed. Commission electronic storage media that is no longer in service is purged in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines for media sanitization (NIST SP 800-88).
Access to this system of records is limited to persons who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties, such as Commission attorneys representing the Commission in administrative matters and Commission paralegals assisting in such matters. Paper records in this system are maintained in locked file cabinets in limited access areas within a building with restricted public access that is patrolled by guards. Both standard and electronic locks are used to restrict access. Access to the keys to the file cabinets is limited to persons whose official duties require access to the files. The electronic records in this system may only be accessed by authorized individuals through the use of safeguards such as passwords.
The records described herein are compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding. Pursuant to section (d)(5) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5), an individual is precluded from access to such records.
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment at the Commission (if applicable);
3. Forum, filing/closing date, caption, and docket number of the action/proceeding involved (if available); and
4. Signature.
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment at the Commission (if applicable);
3. Forum, filing/closing date, caption, and docket number of the action/proceeding involved (if available); and
4. Signature.
The records described herein are compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding. Pursuant to section (d)(5) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5), an individual is precluded from access to such records.
Information from other systems of records may be incorporated into this system (
None.
ITC-20 Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Records.
Classified and Unclassified.
Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
For Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) records, Chief FOIA Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. For Privacy Act records, Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Authority for maintenance of the system includes the following with any revisions or amendments: the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended.
These records are used to effectively monitor, process, and track individuals' requests and administrative appeals made under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. In addition, these records support agency participation in litigation arising from requests and appeals; assigning, processing, and tracking FOIA workloads; and, providing management information reports.
This system contains records and related correspondence on individuals who have submitted requests for information and administrative appeals under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) or the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), as well as individuals whose records have been the subject of a FOIA or Privacy Act request. Other individuals covered by the system include Commission staff assigned to process a request and staff that may have responsive records or are mentioned in such records.
The system contains correspondence and other documents related to FOIA and Privacy Act requests and administrative appeals. The information maintained by the system may include: (1) Records received, copied, created, or compiled during the search and processing of initial requests and administrative appeals; (2) fee schedules, cost calculations, and costs assessed for processing FOIA requests (disclosed FOIA records—cost can be incurred even for records that are not provided to requesters); (3) appeals, intra-agency or interagency memorandums, and correspondence with the requesters or entities who submitted the requests and appeals; (4) the Commission's responses and transferals to other agencies; (5) copies of records disclosed or withheld; (6) requesters' names, organizations, titles, addresses, emails, telephone numbers, fax numbers, Social Security numbers (which may be submitted with documentation or as proof of identification when requesting access to Privacy Act records); (7) information compiled on and about the parties who made written requests or appeals, including individuals on whose behalf such written requests or appeals were made; (8) FOIA tracking numbers; (9) descriptions of the types of requests or appeals, and dates the requests or appeals were received by the Commission; (10) and may include the requester's original Privacy Act/FOIA requests. The system also includes information on the Commission personnel involved in the processing of FOIA and/or Privacy Act requests and appeals (
Information in the system comes from the individual(s) on whom the record is maintained, FOIA staff, and official Commission documents.
General Routine uses A-D, F-K, and M-N apply to these systems.
The records are maintained in paper file folders stored in metal file cabinets and on internal Commission electronic information systems.
These records are retrieved by the name of the individual and also by case file number.
Records relating to the agency's implementation of FOIA and the Privacy Act are disposed of in accordance with the General Records Schedule (GRS) 14 issued by the National Archives and Records Administration. Records that have met required retention periods will be disposed of in accordance with NARA guidelines and Commission policy and procedures. Paper records are shredded, and records maintained on internal Commission electronic information systems are electronically removed. Commission electronic storage media that is no longer in service is purged in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines for media sanitization (NIST SP 800-88).
Access to the records is limited to persons whose official duties require access, such as the Chief FOIA Officer, the FOIA Liaison or a designee. Paper records in this system are stored in file cabinets located in secure areas that are either occupied by staff involved in
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature
Individuals requesting access must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of their records should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature
Individuals requesting amendment must comply with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations on verification of identity (19 CFR 201.25).
Individuals wishing to inquire whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
1. Full name(s);
2. Dates of employment (if applicable); and
3. Signature.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(l) and (k)(2), this system of records is exempted from (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G)-(I) and (f) of the Privacy Act. These exemptions are established in the Commission rules at 19 CFR 201.32. During the course of monitoring, processing, and tracking individuals' requests and administrative appeals, exempt materials from other systems of records may be incorporated into this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from other systems of records are entered into this system, the Commission claims the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary system of records from which they originated.
None.
When information indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, disclosure may be made to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, foreign, State, local, or tribal, or other public authority responsible for enforcing, investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the information disclosed is relevant to any enforcement, regulatory, investigative or prosecutive responsibility of the receiving entity.
Information may be disclosed to any source from which additional information is requested (to the extent necessary to identify the individual, inform the source of the purpose(s) of the request, and to identify the type of information requested), when necessary to obtain information relevant to an agency decision concerning retention of an employee or other personnel action (other than hiring), retention of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance or retention of a grant, or other benefit.
Disclosure may be made to a Federal, State, local, foreign, or tribal or other public authority of the fact that this system of records contains information relevant to the retention of an employee, the retention of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance or retention of a license, grant, or other benefit. The other agency or licensing organization may then make a request supported by the written consent of the individual for the entire record if it so chooses. No disclosure will be made unless the information has been determined to be sufficiently reliable to support a referral to another office within the agency or to another Federal agency for criminal, civil, administrative, personnel, or regulatory action.
Information may be disclosed to the Office of Management and Budget at any stage in the legislative coordination and clearance process in connection with private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19.
Information may be disclosed to a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the Congressional office made at the written request of the individual about whom the record is maintained. Disclosure will not be made until the Congressional office has furnished appropriate documentation of the individual's request, such as a copy of the individual's written request.
Information may be disclosed to and used by the Department of Justice, or in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which the Commission is authorized to appear, when:
1. The Commission, or any component thereof; or
2. Any employee of the Commission in his or her official capacity; or
3. Any employee of the Commission in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or the Commission has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the Commission determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is deemed by the Commission to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
Information may be disclosed to the National Archives and Records Administration or General Services Administration for records management inspections conducted under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
Information may be disclosed to agency contractors, grantees, consultants, or volunteers who have been engaged to assist the agency in the performance of a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, job, or other activity for the Commission related to this system of records and who need to have
Information from this system of records may be disclosed to an authorized appeal grievance examiner, formal complaints examiner, equal employment opportunity investigator, arbitrator or other person properly engaged in investigation or settlement of an administrative grievance, complaint, claim, or appeal filed by an employee or former employee, but only to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the proceeding. Agencies that may obtain information under this routine use include, but are not limited to, the Office of Personnel Management, Office of Special Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Office of Government Ethics.
Information from this system of records may be disclosed to the Office of Personnel Management pursuant to that agency's responsibility for evaluation and oversight of Federal personnel management.
Information from this system of records may be disclosed in connection with litigation or settlement discussions regarding claims by or against the Commission, including public filing with a court, to the extent that disclosure of the information is relevant and necessary to the litigation or discussions and except where court orders are otherwise required under section (b)(11) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(11).
Information from this system of records may be disclosed to provide information to officials of labor organizations when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive representation concerning personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting work conditions.
Disclosure may be made to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Commission suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Commission (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
Disclosure may be made to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Commission determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the 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.
The Commission maintains some records covered by Government-wide systems of records notices published by other agencies. There may not be actual Commission files in all Government-wide systems. This list is based on Privacy Act Issuances, 2015 Compilation, available at
DOL/GOVT-1 Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Federal Employees' Compensation Act File.
DOL/GOVT-2 Jobs Corps Student Records.
DOT/ALL-8 Parking and Transit Benefit System.
EEOC/GOVT-1 Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government Complaint and Appeal Records.
EPA/GOVT-1 Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Records for Federal Employees Parking at Federal Parking Facilities.
EPA/GOVT-2 Federal Docket Management System (FDMS).
DHS/FEMA/GOVT-1 Federal Emergency Management Agency National Defense Executive Reserve System.
GSA/GOVT-2 Employment Under Commercial Activities Contracts.
GSA/GOVT-3 Travel Charge Card Program.
GSA/GOVT-4 Contracted Travel Services Program.
GSA/GOVT-5 Access Certificates for Electronic Services (ACES).
GSA/GOVT-6 GSA SmartPay Purchase Charge Card Program.
GSA/GOVT-7 HSPD-12 USAccess.
MSPB/GOVT-1 Appeals and Case Records.
OGE/GOVT-1 Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Reports and Other Name-Retrieved Ethics Program Records.
OGE/GOVT-2 Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports.
OPM/Central-1 Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records.
OPM/Central-2 Complaints and Inquiries Records.
OPM/Central-4 Inspector General Investigations Case Files.
OPM/Central-5 Intergovernmental Personnel Act Assignment Records.
OPM/Central-6 Administrative Law Judge Application Records.
OPM/Central-7 Litigation and Claims Records.
OPM/Central-9 Personnel Investigations Records.
OPM/Central-10 Federal Executive Institute Program Participant Records.
OPM/Central-11 Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) Program Records.
OPM/Central-13 Executive Personnel Records.
OPM/Central-15 Health Claims Data Warehouse (HCDW).
OPM/Central-16 Health Claims Disputes External Review Services.
OPM/Central-X Federal Competency Assessment Tool.
OPM/Central-18 Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Claims Data Warehouse.
OPM/GOVT-1 General Personnel Records.
OPM/GOVT-2 Employee Performance File System Records.
OPM/GOVT-3 Records of Adverse Actions, Performance Based Reduction in Grade and Removal Actions, and Termination of Probationers.
OPM/GOVT-5 Recruiting, Examining, and Placement Records.
OPM/GOVT-6 Personnel Research and Test Validation Records.
OPM/GOVT-7 Applicant Race, Sex, National Origin, and Disability Status Records.
OPM/GOVT-9 File on Position Classification Appeals, Job Grading Appeals, Retained Grade or Pay Appeals, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Claims and Complaints, Federal Civilian Employee Compensation and Leave Claims, and Settlement of Accounts for Deceased Civilian Officers and Employees.
OPM/GOVT-10 Employee Medical File System Records.
OSC/GOVT-1 OSC Complaint, Litigation and Political Activity Files.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”)
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. 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 under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“Section 337”), on February 7, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Lifetime Products, Inc. of Clearfield, Utah (“Lifetime”). 82 FR 9595-96 (Feb. 7, 2017). The complaint, as amended, alleges a violation of Section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain basketball backboard components and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,749,111; 8,845,463; and 8,852,034. The named respondents are Russell Brands, LLC d/b/a Spalding of Bowling Green, KY (“Russell Brands”) and Reliable Sports Equipment (Wujiang) Co. Ltd. of Wujiang City, Jiangsu, China (“Reliable Sports”). 82 FR at 9595-96. The Commission's Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not named as a party.
On August 24, 2017, Complainant Lifetime and Respondents Russell Brands and Reliable Sports filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement.
On September 6, 2017, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 15) granting the joint motion and terminating the investigation in its entirety based on the settlement agreement. The ALJ found that termination of this investigation is in the public interest because it will not adversely affect the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers. Order No. 15 at 2. No party petitioned for review of the subject ID, and the Commission has determined not to review it.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Rescindment of a system of records notice.
The system of records ITC-10 (Mailing List Records) contained records of requests by individuals for placement on a Commission mailing list. These records were used to maintain the names and addresses of individuals and/or organizations that requested copies of agency publications.
The Commission stopped maintaining this system of records on June 11, 2014.
Written comments on the rescindment of this system of records notice must be received by the Secretary to the Commission no later than October 27, 2017. The rescindment will become effective on that date unless otherwise published in the
You may submit comments, identified by docket number MISC-043, by any of the following methods:
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, tel. 202-205-2000. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.
The Commission discontinued providing paper copies of its publications in June 2014, and no longer has a need for mailing list records. The records contained in this system have been destroyed.
(Mailing List Records)
The Commission previously published notice of this system of records at 71 FR 35294 (June 19, 2006).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Philips Lighting North America Corp. and Philips Lighting Holding B.V. on September 21, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain led lighting devices, led power supplies, and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents Feit Electric Company, Inc. of Pico Rivera, CA; Feit Electric Company Inc. (China) of China; Lowe's Companies, Inc. of Mooresville, NC; L G Sourcing, Inc. of North Wilkesboro, NC; MSi Lighting, Inc. of Boca Raton, FL; RAB Lighting Inc. of Northvale, NJ; Satco Products, Inc. of Brentwood, NY; Topaz Lighting Corp. of Holtsville, NY; Wangs Alliance Corporation d/b/a WAC Lighting Co. of Port Washington, NY; and WAC Lighting (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3256”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
By order of the Commission.
On September 21, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed settlement resolves the United States' claims under Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607, against Mazza & Sons, Inc., for recovery of past response costs incurred at the Frankfort Asbestos Superfund Site. The Site is located at 3720 Southside Road (Old New York State 5S), approximately one mile northwest of the Town of Frankfort, in Herkimer County, New York. Under the proposed Consent Decree, Mazza & Sons, Inc. will pay $250,000 in past response costs to resolve the United States' claims.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $5.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost), payable to the United States Treasury.
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor.
Announcement of joint meeting of the Subcommittee on Medical Advice Re: Weighing Medical Evidence and the Subcommittee on IH & CMC and Their Reports of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health (Advisory Board) for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA).
The subcommittees will meet via teleconference on October 23, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
For press inquiries: Ms. Amy Louviere, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-1028, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-4672; email
The Advisory Board is mandated by Section 3687 of EEOICPA. The Secretary of Labor established the Board under this authority and Executive Order 13699 (June 26, 2015). The purpose of the Advisory Board is to advise the Secretary with respect to: (1) The Site Exposure Matrices (SEM) of the Department of Labor; (2) medical guidance for claims examiners for claims with the EEOICPA program, with respect to the weighing of the medical evidence of claimants; (3) evidentiary requirements for claims under Part B of EEOICPA related to lung disease; and (4) the work of industrial hygienists and staff physicians and consulting physicians of the Department of Labor and reports of such hygienists and physicians to ensure quality, objectivity, and consistency. The Advisory Board sunsets on December 19, 2019. This joint subcommittee meeting is being held to analyze data and information and continue working on advice under Area #2, Medical Advice Re: Weighing Medical Evidence, and Area #4, IH & CMC and Their Reports.
The Advisory Board operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and its implementing regulations (41 CFR part 102-3).
OWCP transcribes Advisory Board subcommittee meetings. OWCP posts the transcripts on the Advisory Board Web page,
Requests for special accommodations: Please submit requests for special accommodations to participate in the subcommittee meeting by email, telephone, or hard copy to Ms. Carrie Rhoads, OWCP, Room S-3524, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 343-5580; email
Submission of written comments for the record: You may submit written
•
•
Comments must be received by October 16, 2017. OWCP will make available publically, without change, any written comments, including any personal information that you provide. Therefore, OWCP cautions interested parties against submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
Electronic copies of this
For further information regarding this meeting, you may contact Douglas Fitzgerald, Designated Federal Officer, at
This is not a toll-free number.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material.”
Submit comments by October 27, 2017.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0009), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-3621; email:
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0048 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “10 CFR part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mandatory Review for Declassification; notice of availability.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is updating its requirements regarding Mandatory Review for Declassification pursuant to Section 3.5 of Executive Order (E.O.) 13526, “Classified National Security Information.” The NRC's requirements regarding Mandatory Review for Declassification were previously published in the
The requirements are available as of September 27, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0191 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:
•
•
•
Darryl H. Parsons, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7751, email:
Purusant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13526, issued on December 29, 2009, and published in the
A. NRC information classified under E.O. 13526 or predecessor orders shall be subject to a review for declassification by NRC, if:
1. The request for a review describes the document or material containing the information with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to locate it with a reasonable amount of effort;
2. The document or material containing the information responsive to the request is not contained within an operational file exempted from search and review, publication, and disclosure under section 552 of title 5,
3. The information is not the subject of pending litigation.
B. Any person desiring a mandatory review for declassification of NRC documents containing classified information should address these requests to the Director, Division of Security Operations, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
C. Requests need not be made on any special form, nor does the requested information have to be identified by date or title, but shall, as specified in E.O. 13526, describe the information with sufficient specificity to enable the NRC to locate the records containing the information sought with a reasonable amount of effort. Requests for broad types of information, entire file series of records, or similar non-specific requests may be denied a mandatory review for declassification by the NRC.
D. The Director, Division of Security Operations, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, will acknowledge receipt of the request and initiate action to obtain the requested information.
E. If the information contained in the requested matter has been reviewed for declassification within the past 2 years, another review need not be conducted, but instead the NRC may inform the requester of this fact and of the results of the prior review decision and advise the requester of appeal rights.
F. Documents required to be submitted for pre-publication review or other administrative process pursuant to an approved nondisclosure agreement are not subject to mandatory declassification review (MDR).
G. The NRC performs an MDR as follows:
1. Conducts a line-by-line review of the matter.
2. Withholds any information that meets the standards for classification under E.O. 13526.
3. Declassifies National Security Information under the NRC's purview that no longer meets the standards for classification under E.O. 13526 or successor orders.
4. If the matter is originated by another agency, the NRC will refer the request and pertinent records to the originating agency, unless the originating agency has agreed that the NRC may review its records in
5. If the matter is marked as, or potentially contains, Restricted Data, Formerly Restricted Data, or Transclassified Foreign Nuclear Information, then the MDR is processed in accordance with 10 CFR part 1045, “Nuclear Classification and Declassification.”
6. If the matter contains cryptologic information then the NRC shall process the MDR in accordance with special procedures issued by the Secretary of Defense and, when cryptologic information pertains to intelligence activities, the Director of National Intelligence.
7. If the matter contains information pertaining to intelligence sources, methods, and activities then the NRC shall process the MDR in accordance with the special procedures issued by the Director of National Intelligence.
8. If the matter contains foreign government information and the NRC initially received or classified the foreign government information, then the NRC shall be responsible for making a declassification determination after consultation with concerned governments/agencies. If the NRC did not initially receive or classify the foreign government information, the NRC shall refer the request to the agency that received or classified the foreign government information for appropriate action. In all instances, the NRC may consult with the foreign government(s) through appropriate channels prior to declassification.
9. If the matter also contains unclassified information that is potentially exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act, the matter is further processed to ensure unclassified information that is exempt from public release is identified and that the appropriate officials responsible for denying any classified portion of the matter are provided and listed with the notice of denial.
10. When information cannot be declassified in its entirety, the NRC will make reasonable efforts to release, consistent with other applicable laws, those declassified portions of the requested information that constitute a coherent segment.
11. A final determination shall be made on each request within 1 year from the date of receipt.
12. Upon completion of the review, the NRC releases the information to the requester, unless that information is prohibited from release under the provisions of a statutory authority.
13. Upon denial, in whole or in part, of an initial request, the NRC's response shall also notify the requester of the right to an administrative appeal.
H. When the Director, Division of Security Operations, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, denies the release of classified matter requested under an MDR, the requester may appeal the determination to the NRC within 60 days of receipt of the denial.
I. The appeal must be in writing and submitted to the Office of the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The appeal:
1. Must include reference to the determination being appealed; and
2. Should specify why the requester believes the information does not warrant classification.
J. The NRC shall normally make a determination within 60 working days following the receipt of an appeal. If additional time is required in rendering a decision, the NRC will notify the requester of the additional time needed and the reason for the extension.
K. The NRC will notify the requester in writing of the final decision and of the reason(s) for any denial. The NRC may refuse to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of the requested information whenever the fact of its existence or nonexistence is itself classified under E.O. 13526 or successor orders.
L. If the appeal has been denied, the NRC shall notify the requester in writing of the right to appeal the final NRC decision to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP). The rules and procedures for bringing mandatory declassification appeals before the ISCAP are published in “The Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) Bylaws, Rules, and Appeal Procedures,” dated July 9, 2012 (77 FR 40261). The appeal to the ISCAP must be filed within 60 days of:
1. The date of the final agency decision;
2. The agency's failure to provide an initial decision on the request for an MDR from the agency within 1 year of its filing; or
3. The agency's failure to provide a final decision on an agency-level appeal within 180 days of the filing of the appeal.
M. Charges for services (
Requirements regarding the NRC's Classified Information Security Program are contained in NRC Management Directive 12.2, “NRC Classified Information Security Program,” which is available for review and printing in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14142A085. Suggestions or questions regarding NRC's Classified Information Security Program should be submitted in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Director, Division of Security Operations, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide, issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing revision 2 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 2.6, “Emergency Planning for Research and Test Reactors and Other Non-Power
Revision 2 of RG 2.6 is available on September 27, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0056 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:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and the NRC's approval is not required to reproduce them.
Geoffrey Wertz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-0893, email:
The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the NRC staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the NRC staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
Revision 2 of RG 2.6 was issued with a temporary designation of Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-2004. The purpose of issuing this RG is to provide licensees and applicants with a method that the staff of the NRC considers acceptable for use in complying with the regulations on the content of emergency plans for research and test reactors and other non-power production and utilization facilities licensed under part 50 of title 10 of the
The NRC published a notice of the availability of DG-2004 in the
Revision 2 of RG 2.6 addresses new issues identified since the guide was last revised in March 1983. This revision endorses the latest version of a consensus standard developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and American Nuclear Society (ANS), ANSI/ANS-15.16-2015, “Emergency Planning for Research Reactors.” The NRC also expanded the scope of the guide to address non-power facilities under 10 CFR part 50, other than research and test reactors. Other changes to RG 2.6 include editorial changes and the current program guidance for RGs.
Revising this regulatory guide to adopt, in whole or in part, a consensus standard is consistent with the NRC policy of evaluating the latest versions of national consensus standards to determine their suitability for endorsement by regulatory guides. This approach also complies with the NRC's Management Directive 6.5, “NRC Participation in the Development and Use of Consensus Standards” (ADAMS Accession No. ML16193A497), and is in accordance with Public Law 104-113, “National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.”
Copies of ANSI/ANS-15.16-2015 may be purchased from the ANS Web site (
This regulatory guide is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
The regulatory positions in this guidance document demonstrate the method that the NRC staff finds acceptable for an applicant or holder of a license under 10 CFR part 50 for a research and test reactor and other non-power production or utilization facility to meet the requirements of the underlying NRC regulations. The issuance of this RG is not backfitting, as that term is defined in 10 CFR 50.109, “Backfitting,” because non-power facilities licensed under 10 CFR part 50 are not included within the scope of entities protected by 10 CFR 50.109.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 0 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 5.88, “Physical Inventories and Material Balances at Fuel Cycle Facilities.” This regulatory guide (RG) describes approaches and methods that the staff considers acceptable for licensees and
Revision 0 to RG 5.88 is available on September 27, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0057 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:
•
•
•
Glenn Tuttle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 301-415-7230, email:
The NRC is issuing a new guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the NRC staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the NRC staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
Revision 0 of RG 5.88 was issued with a temporary identification of draft Regulatory Guide, DG-5056. The new RG provides updated guidance for uranium enrichment facilities as well as other type of facilities by incorporating relevant guidance from three NUREGs without making substantive changes to that guidance.
The RG is titled “Physical Inventories and Material Balances at Fuel Cycle Facilities,” provides guidance for meeting the nuclear material control and accounting (MC&A) requirements in part 74 of title 10 of the
Regulatory Guide 5.88 updates and combines in one document guidance previously provided by RG 5.13, “Conduct of Nuclear Material Physical Inventories,” published in November 1973; and RG 5.33, “Statistical Evaluation of Material Unaccounted For,” published in June 1974.
Due to several rulemakings that occurred from 1985 to 2002 which significantly amended the MC&A requirements, the above regulatory guides became outdated as they no longer cite the correct sections of the regulations. Accordingly, RG 5.13 and RG 5.33 are being withdrawn concurrent with the issuance of RG 5.88, which provides the correct citations to the 10 CFR part 74 regulations.
The NRC's guidance on the MC&A requirements pertaining to the performance, evaluation, and reporting of physical inventories and material balances at fuel cycle facilities is also provided in the following NUREGs that were issued in conjunction with the 1985-2002 MC&A rulemakings:
• NUREG-1280, “Standard Format and Content Acceptance Criteria for the Material Control and Accounting (MC&A) Reform Amendment,” applicable to facilities using formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material (SNM).
• NUREG-1065, “Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control (FNMC) Plan Required for Low-Enriched Uranium Facilities,” applicable to fuel fabrication facilities using low-enriched uranium.
• NUREG/CR-5734, “Recommendations to the NRC on Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control (FNMC) Plan Required for Low-Enriched Uranium Enrichment Facilities,” applicable to uranium enrichment plants.
The RG 5.88 incorporates guidance from these NUREGs that relates to physical inventories and material balances for strategic SNM. In addition to providing guidance on these topics, the NUREGs listed above cover other MC&A requirements as well. Accordingly, these NUREGs are not being withdrawn.
The NRC published a notice of the availability of DG-5056 in the
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Issuance of RG 5.88 in final form would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 70.76. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of RG 5.88, the NRC has no current intention to impose this guidance on holders of part 70 licenses. Additionally, RG 5.88 incorporates relevant guidance from NUREG-1280, NUREG-1065, and NUREG/CR-5734 without making substantive changes to that guidance. Accordingly, the issuance of RG 5.88 does not constitute a “new” or “different” staff position within the definition of “backfitting” in 10 CFR 70.76.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Notice of a modified system of records.
This system of records contains the U.S. Office of Special Counsel's (OSC) case file and other records related to the performance of our statutory duties, including: Investigating or reviewing allegations of wrongdoing; pursuing corrective action and resolution through mediation, litigation, or otherwise; conducting defensive litigation; responding to requests for Hatch Act Unit advisory opinions; and responding to requests and appeals seeking agency information.
The proposed revisions to the system of records are effective upon publication of this notice, except that the revised routine use will become effective on October 27, 2017, unless OSC determines otherwise based on comments received about the routine use revision. OSC will consider comments received by October 27, 2017. OSC's routine use “v.”, as published April 23, 2012 (77 FR 24242), will remain in effect until the revised routine use becomes final. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OSC provided a report to OMB and the Congress for a 30-day review of the proposed modifications.
Submit written comments to: Office of the Clerk, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, by mail at 1730 M Street NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505; by fax to (202) 653-5151, or by email to
Kenneth Hendricks, Clerk of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, at (202) 804-7000, or write to the address above.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, OSC is publishing notice of proposed revisions to its system of records entitled “OSC/GOVT-1, OSC Complaint, Litigation, Political Activity, and Disclosure Files,” last published in full in the
1. OSC clarifies that the purposes for maintaining the system include OSC's performance of its statutory duties, and that the types of records maintained include records related to advisory opinions of OSC's Hatch Act Unit.
2. OSC provides notice of information technology updates to the system's storage location/environment to reflect OSC's use of a FedRAMP-approved government cloud environment, to reflect OSC's development of a new electronic case management system that will provide full-text searching capability for records maintained within that system, and to reflect changes to the system manager information.
3. OSC revises the system location information to clarify that OSC's program offices include the agency's field offices.
4. OSC proposes revisions to routine use “v” pursuant to new requirements announced by OMB on January 3, 2017, in its memorandum M-17-12,
The revised OSC/GOVT-1 reads:
OSC Complaint, Litigation, Political Activity, and Disclosure Files.
In nearly all instances, OSC's work related to this system of records involves records that do not contain classified information. While this system of records generally does not contain classified information, it may include a small volume of records containing classified information. OSC would maintain such records using methods approved for handling classified material. OSC would not maintain or transmit those records using the enterprise information technology system referenced in this notice.
At OSC's headquarters offices (including program offices and the Document Control Branch), U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), 1730 M Street NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505; at OSC's field offices in Oakland, California, Detroit, Michigan, and Dallas, Texas; and within OSC's FedRAMP-approved government cloud. Some records may also be located at other agencies. Some FOIA records are maintained for OSC in the FOIAXpress system at AINs, 806 W. Diamond Avenue, Suite 400, Gaithersburg, MD 20878.
The official responsible for records management functions associated with OSC program and administrative files, including those in the OSC/GOVT-1 system of records, is the Clerk of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, 1730 M Street NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505. The official responsible for management of the enterprise information technology system referred to in this notice is the Chief Information Officer and Information Branch Chief, located at the same address.
5 U.S.C. 552, 552a, 571-584, 1211-1221, 1501-1508, and 7321-7326; 38 U.S.C. 4324, Sec. 204 of the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004, Public Law 108-454 and Sec. 105 of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010, Public Law 111-175, both codified at 38 U.S.C. 4301 note.
OSC maintains the records to: (1) Document how OSC handled each matter; (2) provide a resource for consistency in interpretation and application of the law; and (3) allow for statistical reports and analysis of matters processed at OSC.
The principal categories of individuals covered by the system are persons filing allegations of prohibited personnel practices or other prohibited activities; persons identified as engaging or participating in improper political activity; persons filing disclosures of alleged wrongdoing by federal agencies; persons requesting advisory opinions on political activity, or third party subjects of such advisory opinions; persons charged by OSC in disciplinary action complaints filed by OSC with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); persons on whose behalf OSC seeks corrective action before the MSPB; persons filing allegations of wrongdoing in Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) matters referred or transferred to OSC; plaintiffs seeking remedies or discovery against OSC in litigation or administrative claims; and persons
The principal types of records in the system are complaints alleging prohibited personnel practices, improper political activity, or other violations of law or regulation; disclosures of information about alleged wrongdoing by federal agencies; written requests that result in formal advisory opinions on political activity; allegations of USERRA violations; litigation documents served on or filed by OSC in litigation; correspondence with persons (or their representatives) filing such complaints, disclosures, requests, or litigation; communications with other agencies, entities, or individuals referring matters to OSC for review or investigation; exhibits and other documentation received from filers and requesters, governmental entities or third parties; interview records, including notes, summaries, or transcripts; affidavits; reports or other summaries of investigation; factual and legal summaries or analyses; administrative determinations; referrals to other governmental entities for appropriate action; records created or compiled in connection with litigation by or against OSC, or pertinent to OSC operations; records relating to attempts to resolve matters as part of OSC's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program; records of or related to OSC's FOIA and Privacy Act Program, including but not limited to, requests, appeals, and decisions; information about complaints, disclosures, requests and litigation maintained in OSC's electronic case tracking system; and other correspondence and documents created or obtained in the performance of OSC functions under 5 U.S.C. 1211-1221, 1501-1508, and 7321-7326; 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a; 38 U.S.C. 4324, and other applicable law, regulation, or OSC memoranda of understanding.
Information in this system of records is obtained from a variety of sources, consisting of complainants or others on whose behalf allegations, disclosures of information, or requests for information, have been submitted or referred to OSC; legal, congressional, or other representatives or points of contact; other government bodies; witnesses and subjects in matters under review; principals involved in litigation matters, including parties and their representatives; and other persons or entities furnishing information pertinent to the discharge of functions for which OSC is responsible.
The following routine uses permit OSC to:
a. Disclose information to appropriate federal entities with subject matter expertise to the extent necessary to obtain advice on any authorities, programs, or functions associated with records in this system;
b. Disclose information to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) pursuant to Civil Service Rule 5.4 (5 CFR 5.4), or obtain an advisory opinion concerning the application or effect of civil service laws, rules, regulations, or OPM guidelines in particular situations;
c. Disclose to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or any other agency or office concerned with the enforcement of the anti-discrimination laws, information concerning any allegation or complaint of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicapping condition;
d. Disclose information to the MSPB or the President upon the filing or referral of a disciplinary action complaint against an employee on the basis of an OSC investigation;
e. Disclose information to an agency, the MSPB, OPM, or the President, under 5 U.S.C. 1214, the results of investigations which disclose reasonable grounds to believe a prohibited personnel practice has occurred, exists, or is to be taken;
f. Disclose information to Congress in connection with the submission of an annual report on activities of the Special Counsel;
g. Disclose information:
1. To any agency or person, regarding allegations of prohibited personnel practices or other prohibited activity, or prohibited political activity filed against an agency or any employee thereof, for the purpose of conducting an investigation; resolving an allegation before OSC by settlement or otherwise; or giving notice of the status or outcome of an investigation;
2. to an agency, Office of Inspector General, complainant (whistleblower), the President, Congressional Committees, or the National Security Advisor regarding violations of law, rule, or regulation, or other disclosures under 5 U.S.C. 1213 for the purposes of transmitting information or reports as required under that statute; or in giving notice of the status or outcome of a review;
h. Disclose information to any source from which additional information is requested (to the extent necessary to identify the individual, inform the source of the purpose(s) of the request, and to identify the type of information requested), where necessary to obtain information relevant to an agency decision concerning: The hiring or retention of an employee; the issuance of a security clearance; the classification of a job; the conducting of a security or suitability investigation of an individual; the letting of a contract; or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit;
i. Disclose information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at any stage in the legislative coordination and clearance process in connection with private relief legislation, as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19;
j. Provide information to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office (made at the written request of that individual);
k. Furnish information to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906, or other functions authorized by laws, regulations, and policies governing NARA operations and OSC records management responsibilities;
l. Disclose information when consulting with, or referring a record to, another Federal entity for the purpose of making a decision on a request for information under the FOIA or the Privacy Act; or to the Office of Government Information Services established at NARA by the Open Government Act of 2007, which amended the FOIA, for the purpose of conducting mediation and otherwise resolving disputes under FOIA;
m. Disclose records to the Department of Justice (DOJ) when:
1. Any of the following entities or individuals is a party to litigation or has an interest in litigation:
A. The OSC;
B. Any employee of the OSC in his or her official capacity;
C. Any employee of the OSC in his or her individual capacity whom DOJ has been asked or agreed to represent; or
D. The United States, where the OSC determines that the OSC will be affected by the litigation; and
2. When the OSC determines that use of the records by the DOJ is relevant and necessary to the litigation;
n. Disclose records in a proceeding before a court or adjudicative body, before which the OSC is authorized to appear, when:
1. Any of the following entities or individuals is a party to, or has an interest in the proceedings:
A. The OSC;
B. Any employee of the OSC in his or her official capacity;
C. Any employee of the OSC in his or her individual capacity whom OSC has agreed to represent; or
D. The United States, where the OSC determines that the OSC will be affected by the proceedings; and
2. When the OSC determines that use of the records is relevant and necessary to the proceedings;
o. Disclose information to the MSPB to aid in the conduct of special studies by the Board under 5 U.S.C. 1204(a)(3);
p. Disclose information to an Office of Inspector General (OIG) or comparable internal inspection, audit, or oversight office of an agency for the purpose of facilitating the coordination and conduct of investigations and review of allegations within the purview of both the OSC and the agency OIG or comparable office; or in notifying an OIG (or comparable office) of the disposition of matters referred by the OIG (or comparable office) to the OSC;
q. Disclose information to the news media and the public when (1) the matter under investigation has become public knowledge, (2) the Special Counsel determines that disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of the OSC investigative process or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of OSC officers, employees, or individuals covered by this system, or (3) the Special Counsel determines that there exists a legitimate public interest (
r. Disclose information to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) about OSC's referral of a complaint alleging a violation of veterans preference requirements to DOL for further action under the Veterans' Employment Opportunities Act of 1998; disclose information to DOL or any agency or person as needed to develop relevant information about matters referred by DOL to OSC under 38 U.S.C. 4324 (USERRA); disclose information to DOL or any agency or person as needed to advise on the status or disposition of matters referred by DOL to OSC for disciplinary action under 5 U.S.C. 1215, or possible litigation under 38 U.S.C. 4324; or disclose information to DOL or any agency or person as needed to develop relevant information about, or to advise on the status or disposition of, matters investigated under a USERRA demonstration project at OSC (Sec. 204, Pub. L. 108-454; Sec. 105 Pub. L. 111-275); or disclose information to the U.S. Department of Defense, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR), for the purpose of having ESGR mediate USERRA complaints received by or referred to OSC;
s. To disclose records, when OSC has agreed to represent a USERRA complainant under 38 U.S.C. 4324 (a)(2)(A), from the corresponding USERRA investigative file to the relevant USERRA litigation file, and from the relevant USERRA litigation file to the USERRA complainant;
t. Disclose information to agency contractors, experts, consultants, detailees, or non-OSC employees performing or working on a contract, service, or other activity related to the system of records, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to the system;
u. Make lists and reports available to the public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1219;
v. Disclose information:
1. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) OSC suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) OSC has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to individuals, OSC (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with OSC's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm;
2. To another Federal agency, or Federal entity when OSC determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the 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.
w. Disclose pertinent information to the appropriate federal, state, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order where OSC becomes aware of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation; and to OPM and the OMB pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1214;
x. Disclose information to the Integrity Committee established under section 11(d) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, when needed because of receipt, review or referral to the Integrity Committee under section 7(b) of Public Law 110-409; or as needed for a matter referred to OSC by the Integrity Committee; and
y. Disclose information to the DOJ and/or the Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), pursuant to the reporting requirements of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, as amended by the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.
These records are stored in a variety of media, primarily consisting of file folders, computer storage equipment, and the government cloud. Access is limited to those agency personnel who have an official need for access to perform their duties. OSC requires new employees to read and acknowledge agency directives, including on information technology user roles and responsibilities, records management, and privacy protection. OSC requires all employees to complete annual cybersecurity awareness training.
Some files in this system of records are retrievable through full-text search capability, including by the names of key individuals or agencies involved (including, complainants or requesters; persons on whose behalf OSC seeks corrective action; subjects identified in disciplinary proceedings, warning letters, or other determinations; legal, congressional, or other representatives or points of contact; or key witnesses), although files are generally retrieved by the name of: (a) The complainant alleging a prohibited personnel practice, or other prohibited activity; (b) the alleged subject of a complaint about prohibited political activity; (c) the person filing an allegation through the OSC whistleblower disclosure channel; (d) the name of the person filing a request for an advisory opinion on political activity, or the third-party subject of such advisory opinions; (e) the name of the person on whose behalf OSC seeks corrective action, or the
Case file records related to allegations of prohibited personnel practices and other prohibited activities, including allegations of improper political activity, violations of USERRA, and other matters under OSC's jurisdiction, including program litigation records and records of the ADR Unit and the Disclosure Unit, that are of extraordinary importance to the nation or OSC, are permanent records when approved by the Special Counsel. Case file records of the Disclosure Unit that result in either a referral to an agency head pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1213, or an informal referral to an agency's Inspector General, are retained for 10 years after the date of closure. Other case file records related to such prohibited activities, including program litigation, and the Disclosure Unit are retained for 6 years after the date of closure. Case file records of Formal Advisory Opinions of the Hatch Act Unit are retained for 6 years after the date of closure. Litigation case file records relating to the legal defense of OSC and its interests in matters and claims filed against the agency in courts, administrative tribunals, or other forums, including formal and informal discovery requests, and other claims or similar proceedings that are of extraordinary importance to the nation or OSC are permanent records when approved by the Special Counsel. All other such defensive litigation and claim case file records are retained for 7 years after the date of closure. Additionally, final signed settlement agreements are retained for 20 years after the date of closure. Personally identifiable information in OSC's electronic case tracking system is retained until deleted from the database 25 years after the corresponding case file is destroyed. Case file records related to OSC's FOIA and Privacy Act Program are retained in accordance with NARA's General Records Schedule 14 for Information Services Records. Disposal of records is accomplished by shredding or by NARA-approved processes. Electronic information is disposed of by deletion. OSC is revising its record retention schedule in consultation with NARA. Pending approval of the revised records schedule, records are maintained for the current or proposed retention, whichever is longer.
These records are located in lockable file cabinets or in secured areas. Other OSC safeguards include the required use of computer password protection identification features and other system protection methods. Access is limited to those agency personnel who have an official need for access to perform their duties. OSC requires new employees to read and acknowledge agency directives, including on information technology user roles and responsibilities, records management, and privacy protection. OSC requires all employees to complete annual cybersecurity awareness training.
Individuals who wish to request record access should contact the FOIA/Privacy Act Officer, U.S. Office of Special Counsel: (1) By mail at 1730 M Street NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505; (2) by telephone at 202-804-7000; or (3) by fax: at 202-653-5161. To assist in the process of locating and identifying records, individuals should furnish the following: Name and home address; business title and address; any other known identifying information such as an agency file number or identification number; a description of the circumstances under which the records were compiled; and any other information deemed necessary by OSC to properly process the request. Requesters should reasonably describe the records they seek. Rules about FOIA access are in 5 CFR part 1820, and rules about Privacy Act access are in 5 CFR part 1830.
Individuals who wish to contest records about themselves should contact OSC's Privacy Act Officer, identify any information they believe should be corrected, and furnish a statement of the basis for the requested correction along with all available supporting documents and materials. See OSC Privacy Act regulations at 5 CFR part 1830.
OSC will claim exemptions from the provisions of the Privacy Act at subsections (c)(3) and (d) as permitted by subsection (k) for records subject to the Act that fall within the category of investigatory material described in paragraphs (2) and (5), and testing or examination material described in paragraph (6) of that subsection. The exemptions for investigatory material are necessary to prevent frustration of inquiries into allegations of prohibited personnel practices, unlawful political activity, whistleblower disclosures, USERRA violations, and other matters under OSC's jurisdiction, and to protect identities of confidential sources of information, including in background investigations of OSC employees, contractors, and other individuals conducted by or for OSC. The exemption for testing or examination material is necessary to prevent the disclosure of information which would potentially give an individual an unfair competitive advantage or diminish the utility of established examination procedures. OSC also reserves the right to assert exemptions for records received from another agency that could be properly claimed by that agency in responding to a request. OSC may also refuse access to any information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding. OSC published a final rule regarding these exemptions at 72 FR 56617 (Oct. 4, 2017).
OSC last published a
Peace Corps.
60-day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before November 27, 2017.
Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA/
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on Peace Corps' services will be unavailable.
Peace Corps will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the GraniteShares Platinum Trust under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the GraniteShares Platinum Trust (the “Trust”), under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201.
The Trust will not be registered as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended,
The Sponsor of the Trust is GraniteShares LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The Bank of New York Mellon is the trustee of the Trust (the “Trustee”)
The Commission has previously approved listing on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 of other precious metals and platinum-based commodity trusts, including the ETFS Platinum Trust,
The Exchange represents that the Shares satisfy the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 and thereby qualify for listing on the Exchange.
The investment objective of the Trust will be for the Shares to reflect the performance of the price of platinum, less the expenses and liabilities of the Trust. The Trust will issue Shares which represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Trust.
The Trust will not trade in platinum futures or options on any futures exchange or over the counter (“OTC”) transactions in spot, forwards, and options and other derivatives. The Trust will not hold or trade in commodity futures contracts, “commodity interests”, or any other instruments regulated by the Commodities Exchange Act. The Trust will take delivery of physical platinum that complies with the LPPM platinum delivery rules.
The Shares are intended to constitute a simple and cost-effective means of making an investment similar to an investment in platinum. Although the Shares are not the exact equivalent of an investment in platinum, they provide investors with an alternative that allows a level of participation in the platinum market through the securities market.
The global trade in platinum consists of OTC transactions in spot, forwards, and options and other derivatives, together with exchange traded futures and options.
Most trading in physical platinum is conducted on the OTC market, predominantly in Zurich and London. The LPPM coordinates various OTC market activities, including clearing and vaulting, acts as the principal intermediary between physical platinum market participants and the relevant regulators, promotes good trading practices and develops standard market documentation. In addition, the LPPM promotes refining standards for the platinum market by maintaining the “London/Zurich Good Delivery List,” which are the lists [sic] of LPPM accredited melters and assayers of platinum.
The basis for settlement and delivery of a spot trade is payment (generally in US dollars) two business days after the trade date against delivery. Delivery of the platinum can either be by physical delivery or through the clearing systems to an unallocated account. The unit of trade in London and Zurich is the troy
The Trust will create and redeem Shares on a continuous basis in one or more blocks of 15,000 Shares (a block of 15,000 Shares is called a “Basket”). As described below, the Trust will issue Shares in Baskets to certain authorized participants (“Authorized Participants”) on an ongoing basis. Baskets of Shares will only be issued or redeemed in exchange for an amount of platinum represented by the aggregate number of Shares redeemed. No Shares will be issued unless the Custodian has allocated to the Trust's account the corresponding amount of platinum. Initially, a Basket will require delivery of 1,500 fine ounces of platinum. The amount of platinum necessary for the creation of a Basket, or to be received upon redemption of a Basket, will decrease over the life of the Trust, due to the payment or accrual of fees and other expenses or liabilities payable by the Trust.
Baskets may be created or redeemed only by Authorized Participants. Orders must be placed by 3:59 p.m. Eastern Time (“E.T.”). The day on which a Trust receives a valid purchase or redemption order is the order date.
Each Authorized Participant must be a registered broker-dealer, a participant in Depository Trust Corporation (“DTC”), have entered into an agreement with the Trustee (the “Authorized Participant Agreement”) and have established a platinum unallocated account with the Custodian or a physical platinum clearing bank. The Authorized Participant Agreement provides the procedures for the creation and redemption of Baskets and for the delivery of platinum in connection with such creations or redemptions.
According to the Registration Statement, Authorized Participants, acting on authority of the registered holder of Shares, may surrender Baskets of Shares in exchange for the corresponding Basket Amount announced by the Trustee. Upon surrender of such Shares and payment of the Trustee's applicable fee and of any expenses, taxes or charges (such as stamp taxes or stock transfer taxes or fees), the Trustee will deliver to the order of the redeeming Authorized Participant the amount of platinum corresponding to the redeemed Baskets. Shares can only be surrendered for redemption in Baskets of 15,000 Shares each.
Before surrendering Baskets of Shares for redemption, an Authorized Participant must deliver to the Trustee a written request indicating the number of Baskets it intends to redeem or on a business day when the LBMA Platinum Price PM or other applicable benchmark price is not announced. The date the Trustee receives that order determines the Basket Amount to be received in exchange. However, orders received by the Trustee after 3:59 p.m. E.T. on a business day or on a business day when the LBMA Platinum Price PM or other applicable benchmark price is not announced, will not be accepted.
The redemption distribution from the Trust will consist of a credit to the redeeming Authorized Participant's unallocated account representing the amount of the platinum held by the Trust evidenced by the Shares being redeemed as of the date of the redemption order.
The NAV of the Trust will be calculated by subtracting the Trust's expenses and liabilities on any day from the value of the platinum owned by the Trust on that day; the NAV per Share will be obtained by dividing the NAV of the Trust on a given day by the number of Shares outstanding on that day. On each day on which the Exchange is open for regular trading, the Trustee will determine the NAV as promptly as practicable after 4:00 p.m. E.T. The Trustee will value the Trust's platinum based on the most recently announced LBMA Platinum Price PM or LBMA Palladium Price AM. If neither price is available for that day, the Trustee will value the Trust's platinum based on the most recently announced LBMA Platinum Price PM or LBMA Platinum Price AM. If [sic] Sponsor determines that such price is inappropriate to use, the Sponsor will identify an alternate basis for evaluation to be employed by the Trustee. Further, the Sponsor may instruct the Trustee to use on an on-going basis a different publicly available price which the Sponsor determines to fairly represent the commercial value of the Trust's platinum.
The NAV per Share will be calculated by taking the current price of the Trust's total assets, subtracting any liabilities, and dividing by the total number of Shares outstanding. Authorized Participants will offer Shares at an offering price that will vary, depending on, among other factors, the price of platinum and the trading price of the Shares on the Exchange at the time of offer. Authorized Participants will not receive from the Trust, the Sponsor, the Trustee or any of their affiliates any fee or other compensation in connection with the offering of the Shares.
While the Trust seeks to reflect generally the performance of the price of platinum less the Trust's expenses and liabilities, Shares may trade at, above or below their NAV. The NAV of Shares will fluctuate with changes in the market value of the Trust's assets. The trading prices of Shares will fluctuate in accordance with changes in their NAV as well as market supply and demand. The amount of the discount or premium in the trading price relative to the NAV may be influenced by non-concurrent trading hours between the major platinum markets and the Exchange. While the Shares trade on the Exchange until 4:00 p.m. E.T., liquidity in the market for platinum may be reduced after the close of the major world platinum markets, including London, Zurich and COMEX. As a result, during this time, trading spreads, and the resulting premium or discount, on Shares may widen.
Currently, the Consolidated Tape Plan does not provide for dissemination of the spot price of a commodity such as platinum over the Consolidated Tape. However, there will be disseminated over the Consolidated Tape the last sale price for the Shares, as is the case for all equity securities traded on the Exchange (including exchange-traded funds). In addition, there is a considerable amount of platinum price and market information available on public Web sites and through professional and subscription services.
Investors may obtain platinum pricing information on a 24-hour basis based on the spot price for an ounce of platinum from various financial information service providers, such as Reuters and Bloomberg. Reuters and Bloomberg provide at no charge on their Web sites delayed information regarding the spot price of platinum and last sale prices of platinum futures, as well as information about news and developments in the platinum market. Reuters and Bloomberg also offer a professional service to subscribers for a fee that provides information on platinum prices directly from market participants. ICAP plc provides an electronic trading platform called EBS for the trading of spot platinum, as well as a feed of real-time streaming prices, delivered as record-based digital data from the EBS platform to its customer's market data platform via Bloomberg or Reuters.
Complete real-time data for platinum futures and options prices traded on the COMEX are available by subscription from Reuters and Bloomberg. The NYMEX also provides delayed futures and options information on current and past trading sessions and market news free of charge on its Web site. There are a variety of other public Web sites providing information on platinum, ranging from those specializing in precious metals to sites maintained by major newspapers, such as The Wall Street Journal.
The intraday indicative value (“IIV”) per Share for the Shares will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session. The IIV will be calculated based on the amount of platinum held by the Trust and a price of platinum derived from updated bids and offers indicative of the spot price of platinum.
The Web site for the Trust (
The Trust will be subject to the criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(e) for initial and continued listing of the Shares.
A minimum of one Basket or 15,000 Shares will be required to be outstanding at the start of trading, which is equivalent to 1,500 fine ounces of platinum. The Exchange believes that the anticipated minimum number of Shares outstanding at the start of trading is sufficient to provide adequate market liquidity.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Trust subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Trading in the Shares on the Exchange will occur in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34(a). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, Commentary .03, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
Further, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 sets forth certain restrictions on ETP Holders acting as registered Market Makers in the Shares to facilitate surveillance. Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(g), an ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker in the Shares is required to provide the Exchange with information relating to its trading in the underlying platinum, related futures or options on futures, or any other related derivatives. Commentary .04 of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.3 requires an ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker, and its affiliates, in the Shares to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of any material nonpublic information with respect to such products, any components of the related products, any physical asset or commodity underlying the product, applicable currencies, underlying indexes, related futures or options on futures, and any related derivative instruments (including the Shares).
As a general matter, the Exchange has regulatory jurisdiction over its ETP Holders and their associated persons, which include any person or entity controlling an ETP Holder. A subsidiary or affiliate of an ETP Holder that does business only in commodities or futures contracts would not be subject to Exchange jurisdiction, but the Exchange could obtain information regarding the activities of such subsidiary or affiliate through surveillance sharing agreements with regulatory organizations of which such subsidiary or affiliate is a member.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. Trading on the Exchange in the Shares may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which conditions in the underlying platinum market have caused disruptions and/or lack of trading, or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. In addition, trading in Shares will be subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to the Exchange's “circuit breaker” rule.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
Also, pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(g), the Exchange is able to obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying platinum, platinum futures contracts, options on platinum futures, or any other platinum derivative, through ETP Holders acting as registered Market Makers, in connection with such ETP Holders' proprietary or customer trades through ETP Holders which they effect on any relevant market.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this rule filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares of the Trust on the Exchange.
The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Trust to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Trust is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(m).
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Baskets (including noting that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) how information regarding the IIV is disseminated; (4) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; (5) the possibility that trading spreads and the resulting premium or discount on the Shares may widen as a result of reduced liquidity of platinum trading during the Core and Late Trading Sessions after the close of the major world platinum markets; and (6) trading information. For example, the Information Bulletin will advise ETP Holders, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Trust. The Exchange notes that investors purchasing Shares directly from the Trust (by delivery of the Creation Basket Deposit) will receive a prospectus. ETP Holders purchasing Shares from the Trust for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors.
In addition, the Information Bulletin will reference that the Trust is subject to various fees and expenses as will be described in the Registration Statement. The Information Bulletin will also reference the fact that there is no regulated source of last sale information regarding physical platinum, that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the trading of platinum as a physical commodity, and that the CFTC has regulatory jurisdiction over the trading of platinum futures contracts and options on platinum futures contracts.
The Information Bulletin will also discuss any relief, if granted, by the Commission or the staff from any rules under the Act.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that there is a considerable amount of platinum price and platinum market information available on public Web sites and through professional and subscription services. Investors may obtain platinum pricing information on a 24-hour basis based on the spot price for an ounce of platinum from various financial information service providers. ICAP's EBS platform also provides an electronic trading platform to institutions such as bullion banks and dealers for the trading of spot platinum, as well as a feed of live streaming prices to market data subscribers.
The NAV of the Trust will be published by the Sponsor on each day that the NYSE Arca is open for regular trading and will be posted on the Trust's Web site. The IIV relating to the Shares will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session. The Trust's Web site will also provide the Trust's prospectus, as well as the two most recent reports to stockholders. In addition, information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition by accommodating Exchange trading of an additional exchange-traded product relating to physical platinum.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 980NY(Electronic Complex Order Trading) to clarify the priority of Electronic Complex Orders and to modify aspects of its Complex Order Auction Process.
The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 980NY to clarify the priority of Electronic Complex Orders (“ECO”)
Rule 980NY sets forth how the Exchange conducts trading of ECOs in its Complex Matching Engine (“CME”). The Exchange proposes to streamline the rule text describing the execution of ECOs during Core Trading Hours
The Exchange proposes to streamline its description of the priority of ECOs during Core Trading Hours, which the Exchange believes would add specificity and transparency to Exchange rules. Every ECO, upon entry to the System, is routed to the CME for possible execution against other ECOs or against individual quotes and orders residing in the Consolidated Book (“leg markets”).
Paragraph (c) to the Rule sets forth how ECOs are executed, including that ECOs submitted to the System may be executed without consideration of prices of the same complex order that might be available on other exchanges.
Rule 980NY(c)(ii) sets forth how ECOs are executed during Core Trading. Paragraph (c)(ii)(A) currently provides that the CME will accept an incoming marketable ECO and will automatically execute the ECO giving first priority to ECOs in the Consolidated Book or, if not marketable against another ECO, the incoming ECO will trade against individual orders or quotes residing in the Consolidated Book, provided it can be executed in full (or in a permissible ratio) by the leg markets.
The Exchange proposes to revise the rule text describing execution of ECOs during Core Trading Hours in a manner that the Exchange believes would promote transparency regarding the processing of ECOs. The proposed rule text is not intended to change how the Exchange currently processes ECOs, which is described in the current rule, but rather to specify the order processing in a more logical manner. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete current paragraph (c)(ii)(A) of the Rule and replace it with proposed new paragraph (c)(ii).
Proposed Rule 980NY(c)(ii) would provide that the CME would accept an incoming marketable ECO and automatically execute it against the best-priced contra-side interest resting in the Consolidated Book.
The proposed rule text would further specify that if, at a price, all the leg markets can trade against an incoming ECO in full (or in a permissible ratio), and each leg includes Customer interest, the leg markets would have first priority at that price to trade with the incoming ECO pursuant to Rule 964NY(b), to be followed by resting ECOs in price/time priority.
As is currently the case, following any executions against the best-priced resting ECOs and/or against the leg markets, at a price, the ECO would then trade with ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book.
To distinguish the treatment during Core Trading of incoming marketable ECOs (that are immediately executed) from ECOs that are not marketable (and thus routed to the Consolidated Book), the Exchange proposes to renumber current Rule 980NY(c)(ii)(B) and (C), as proposed Rule 980NY(c)(iii)(A) and (B), under the new heading “Electronic Complex Orders in the Consolidated Book.” The Exchange also proposes language in Rule 980NY(c)(iii)(A) to make clear that an ECO, or portion thereof, that is not executed on arrival will be ranked in the Consolidated Book and that any incoming orders and quotes that can trade with a resting ECO would execute “according to (c)(ii) above.”
The Exchange proposes to modify its description of the COA Process and the execution of COA-eligible orders, which the Exchange believes would provide additional specificity and transparency to Exchange rules.
Proposed Rule 980NY(e) would provide that, upon entry into the System, ECOs may be immediately executed, in full (or in a permissible ratio) as provided in proposed paragraph (c)(ii), or may be subject to a COA as described in the Rule. This rule text is based on current Rule 980NY(e), which provides that COA-eligible orders, upon entry into the System, “may be subject to an automated request for responses (“RFR”) auction.”
(i) Designated by the ATP Holder as COA-eligible; and
(ii) received during Core Trading Hours.
The proposed definition is based, in part, on the current Rule, which provides that whether an order is COA-eligible “would be determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis”
Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(2) would add new rule text describing the “Immediate Execution of COA-eligible orders.” The proposed text would clearly state that, upon entry of a COA-eligible order into the System, it would trade immediately, in full (or in a permissible ratio), with any ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book that are priced better than the contra-side Complex BBO and, if not all legs include Customer interest, with any ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book priced equal to the contra-side Complex BBO.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule text promotes transparency regarding when a COA-eligible order would receive an immediate execution (
• First, as set forth in proposed Rule 980NY(e)(3)(i), the limit price of the COA-eligible order to buy (sell) would have to be higher (lower) than the best-priced, same-side interest in both the leg markets and any ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book. In other words, the limit price of the COA-eligible order would have to improve the current same-side market.
• Second, as set forth in proposed Rule 980NY(e)(3)(ii), the COA-eligible order would have to be priced within a given number of ticks away from the current, contra-side market, as determined by the Exchange. This concept is based on current Rule 980NY(e)(1), which defines the “marketability” of a COA-eligible order as being “a number of ticks away from the current market.” Because a COA-eligible order may be a certain number of ticks away from the current market, a COA could be initiated even if the limit price of the COA-eligible order is not at or within the Exchange best bid/offer for each leg of the order. However, a COA-eligible order must trade at a price that is at or within the Exchange best bid/offer for each leg of the order, consistent with Rule 980NY(c) regarding the execution of ECOs in general.
The Exchange also proposes to make clear that a COA-eligible order would reside on the Consolidated Book until it meets the requirements of proposed paragraph (e)(3)(i)-(ii) and can initiate a COA.
Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(4) would also include new rule text providing that, at the end of the RTI, the COA-eligible order would be allocated pursuant to proposed Rule 980NY(e)(7), which describes the allocation of COA-eligible orders (hereinafter “COA Order Allocation”) (described below). This proposed new rule text is based in part on current Rule 980NY(e)(5), which provides that at the expiration of the RTI, COA-eligible orders may be executed, in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 980NY(e)(6) (Execution of COA-eligible orders). The proposed rule text refers instead to Rule 980NY(e)(7), which incorporates the order allocation concepts currently set forth in Rule 980NY(e)(6). The proposed change is intended to add clarity and transparency to the COA Process.
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(5)(A) would provide that RFR Responses are ECOs that have a time-in-force contingency for the duration of the COA, must specify the price, size, and side of the market, and may be submitted in $0.01 increments. This rule text is based in part on the first sentence of Rule 980NY(e)(4), which provides that RFR Responses may be submitted in $.01 increments. Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(5)(A) is based in part on the second to last sentence of current Rule 980NY(e)(7), which provides that RFR Responses expire at the end of the RTI, which is the same in substance as saying that an RFR Response has a time-in-force condition for the duration of the COA. The Exchange believes its proposed rule text is more accurate because it states that RFR Responses are valid for the duration of the COA, as opposed to the RTI, the latter being the period during which COA interest (including RFR Responses and incoming ECOs) is received and the former being the overall COA Process that allocates COA-eligible orders with the best-priced auction interest, including RFR Responses.
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(5)(B) would provide that RFR Responses must be on the opposite side of the COA-eligible order and any RFR Responses on the same side of the COA-eligible order would be rejected. This proposed rule text is based on the last sentence of current Rule 980NY(e)(4), which provides that RFR Responses must be on the opposite side of the COA-eligible order and any same-side RFR responses would be rejected by the Exchange, without any substantive changes.
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(5)(C) would provide that RFR Responses may be modified or cancelled during the RTI,
The Exchange believes that the proposed Rules 980NY(e)(5), which reorganizes information from existing rule text and adds language to describe the requisite characteristics and behavior of an RFR Response, adds clarity and transparency to Exchange rules, including that, like all orders, an RFR Response may be modified or cancelled prior to the end of the RTI. The Exchange believes that specifying that RFR Reponses are good for the duration of the COA and may trade with interest received during the COA before expiring would encourage participation in the COA and would maximize the number of contracts traded.
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(A)(i) would provide that incoming ECOs or COA-eligible orders that lock or cross the initial Complex BBO would cause the COA to end early. The concept of the initial Complex BBO as a benchmark against which incoming opposite-side interest would be measured is new rule text, but is consistent with current functionality. As noted above (
The proposed rule text relating to how an incoming opposite-side ECO or COA-eligible order would be processed is based on current Rule 980NY(e)(8)(A), which provides that incoming ECOs received during the RTI “that are on the opposite side of the market and marketable against the limit price of the initiating COA-eligible order will be ranked and executed in price time with RFR Responses.”
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(A)(ii) would provide that incoming ECOs or COA-eligible orders that are executable against the limit price of the initiating COA-eligible order, but do not lock or cross the initial Complex BBO, would not cause the COA to end early and would be ranked with RFR Responses to trade with the initiating COA-eligible order. This proposed paragraph specifies that the COA would continue uninterrupted by such incoming orders because such interest does not impact priority (because the incoming order isn't priced better than the leg markets at the start of the COA). The incoming order, however, would be eligible to participate in the COA. This proposed text would be new rule text, which reflects current functionality that is based on the principles set forth in current Rule 980NY(e)(8)(A).
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(A)(iii) would provide that incoming ECOs or COA-eligible orders that are either not executable on arrival against the limit price of the initiating COA-eligible order or do not lock or cross the initial Complex BBO would not cause the COA to end early. Per this proposed paragraph, the COA would proceed uninterrupted as the incoming interest does not trigger priority concerns (
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(A)(iv) would provide that any incoming ECO(s), or the balance thereof, that was not executed with the initiating COA-eligible order or was not executable on arrival would trade pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(ii) or (iii) of this Rule (
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(A)(v) would provide that any incoming COA-eligible order(s), or the balance thereof, that was not executed with the initiating COA-eligible order or was not executable on arrival would initiate subsequent COA(s) in price-time priority. Because the treatment of opposite-side COA-eligible orders is not described in the current rule, this would be new rule text. Unlike the treatment of incoming opposite-side ECOs—where any remaining balance of the ECOs would be subject to Core Trading Allocation or would be posted to the Consolidated Book after trading with the initiating COA-eligible order—any balance of the incoming contra-side COA-eligible order that does not trade with the initiating COA-eligible order would initiate a new COA.
The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(A)(i)-(v) would provide additional specificity regarding the impact of opposite-side ECOs or COA-eligible orders on the COA Process, which adds transparency to Exchange rules. Specifically, the Exchange believes that providing for a COA to terminate early when an incoming order locks or crosses the initial Complex BBO, as proposed, would allow an initiating COA-eligible order to trade (ahead of the incoming order) against any RFR Responses or ECOs received during the RTI up until that point, while preserving the priority of the incoming order to trade with the resting leg markets. If no RFRs had been received during the RTI, the initiating COA-eligible order would trade against the best-priced, contra side interest, including the order the caused the COA to terminate early. The Exchange believes that early conclusion of the COA would avoid disturbing priority in the Consolidated Book and would allow the Exchange to appropriately handle incoming orders. The proposed rule text is consistent with the processing of ECOs during Core Trading and ensures that the leg markets respect the COA as well as principles of price/time priority.
The Exchange proposes to process any remaining balance of COA-eligible orders differently from any balance of the incoming ECO because an ECO would either trade against resting interest or be ranked with ECOs in the Consolidated Book, whereas any balance of a COA-eligible order would initiate a new COA. The Exchange believes that this proposed rule text, which is consistent with current functionality, maximizes the execution opportunities to the incoming order(s), as these orders may trade with interest received in the (initiating) COA; and, for the incoming COA-eligible order, the potential for additional price improvement in a subsequent COA.
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(B)(i) would provide that incoming ECOs or COA-eligible orders that are priced better than the initiating COA-eligible order would cause the COA to end.
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(B)(ii) would provide that an incoming ECO or COA-eligible order that is priced equal to or worse than the initiating COA-eligible order,
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(B)(iii) would provide that incoming ECOs or COA-eligible orders that are priced equal to or worse than the initiating COA-eligible order,
The Exchange notes that current Rules 980NY(e)(8)(B) and (C) state that an incoming same-side COA-eligible order (priced equal to or worse than the initiating order) joins a COA in progress and is executed in price/time with the
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(B)(iv) would provide that any incoming ECO or COA-eligible order that caused a COA to end early, if executable, would trade against any RFR Responses or ECOs that did not trade with the initiating COA-eligible order. This proposed paragraph reflects current functionality and is based on current Rule 980NY(e)(8)(D) inasmuch as it addresses incoming same-side COA-eligible orders that cause the COA to end early.
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(B)(v) would provide that incoming ECOs, or any remaining balance per proposed paragraph (iv) above, that do not trade against any remaining RFR Responses or ECOs received during the RTI would trade pursuant to Core Trading Allocation, pursuant to paragraph (c)(ii) or (iii) of this Rule. This proposed rule text is consistent with the treatment of the balance of incoming same-side ECOs set forth in current Rule 980NY(e)(8)(A)-(C), with the added detail that the ECO would first be subject to Core Trading Allocation pursuant to proposed Rule 980NY(c)(ii) before being ranked in the Consolidated Book.
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(B)(vi) would provide that the remaining balance of any incoming COA-eligible order(s) that does not trade against any remaining RFR Responses or ECOs received during the RTI would initiate new COA(s) in price-time priority. This proposed rule text is based in part on current Rule 980NY(e)(8)(D), which provides that any unexecuted portion of the incoming COA-eligible would initiate a new COA.
The Exchange believes that proposed Rules 980NY(e)(6)(B)(i)-(vi) would provide greater specificity regarding the impact of arriving same-side COA-eligible orders and ECOs on a COA, which adds internal consistency, clarity and transparency to Exchange rules. Specifically, the Exchange believes that providing for a COA to terminate early under the circumstances specified in proposed Rules 980NY(e)(6)(B)(i) and (ii) would allow a COA-eligible order to trade (ahead of the incoming order) against any RFR Responses or ECOs received during the RTI up until that point, while preserving the priority of the incoming order to trade with the resting leg markets. The Exchange believes that early conclusion in this circumstance would ensure that the COA interacts seamlessly with the Consolidated Book so as not to disturb the priority of orders on the Book.
The proposed rule text is consistent with the processing of ECOs during Core Trading and ensures that the COA respects the leg markets as well as principles of price/time priority.
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(C)(i) would provide that updates to the leg markets that would cause the same-side Complex BBO to lock or cross any RFR Response(s) and/or ECO(s) received during the RTI, or any ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book, would cause the COA to end early. The Exchange believes that providing for a COA to terminate early when the leg markets update in this manner would allow a COA-eligible order to trade against any RFR Responses or ECOs received during the RTI up until that point, while preserving the priority of the updated leg markets to trade with any eligible contra-side interest, including any ECOs resting in the Consolidated Book.
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(C)(ii) would provide that updates to the leg markets that would cause the same-side Complex BBO to be priced better than the COA-eligible order,
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(C)(iii) would provide that updates to the leg markets that would cause the contra-side Complex BBO to lock or cross the same-side initial Complex BBO would cause the COA to end early.
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(6)(C)(iv) would provide that updates to the leg markets that would cause the contra-side Complex BB (BO) to improve (
The Exchange believes that proposed paragraphs (e)(6)(C)(i)-(iv) of Rule 980NY respect the COA process, while at the same time ensuring a fair and orderly market by maintaining the priority of quotes and orders on the Consolidated Book as they update. The proposed rule is based in part on Rule
Current Rules 980NY(e)(6)(A)-(D) set forth how a COA-eligible order trades against same-priced contra-side interest (
The Exchange proposes to clarify and update the rule text describing the priority and allocation of COA-eligible orders during the COA process to remove references to Customer ECO priority, which is not the Exchange's allocation model, and instead reflect the Exchange's price-time priority model in proposed Rule 980NY(e)(7), under the heading “Allocation of COA-Eligible Orders,” which would replace current paragraph (e)(6) in its entirety. Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(7) would provide that when a COA ends early, or at the end of the RTI, a COA-eligible order would be executed against contra-side interest received during the COA as provided for in proposed Rules 980NY(e)(7)(A) and (B), and any unexecuted portion of the COA-eligible order would be ranked in the Consolidated Book pursuant to proposed Rule 980NY(b).
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(7)(A) would provide that RFR Responses and ECOs priced better than
• Proposed Rule 980NY(e)(7)(B) provides that after COA allocations pursuant to paragraph (e)(7)(A) of this Rule, the COA-eligible order would trade with the best-priced contra-side interest pursuant to paragraph (c)(ii) or (iii) above. In other words, once the COA-eligible order has traded with any ECOs or RFR Responses priced better than the initial Complex BBO (
Finally, consistent with the foregoing proposed changes regarding priority of ECOs during Core Trading and during a COA, the Exchange proposes to modify Commentary .02 to the Rule, which also addresses the priority of ECOs. The current Commentary .02 provides, in relevant part, that “when executing an [ECO] the price of at least one leg of the order must” trade at a better price as specified in subparagraphs (i) and (ii). The Exchange proposes to make clear that requisite price improvement on at least one leg of the ECO applies “where
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Overall, the Exchange is proposing various changes that would promote just and equitable principles of trade, because ECOs, including COA-eligible orders, would be handled in a fair and orderly manner, as described above. The various modifications and clarifications, many of which are consistent with current functionality are intended to improve the rule overall by adding more specificity and transparency. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes would promote just and equitable principles of trade as well as protect investors and the public interest by making more clear how ECOs and COA-eligible orders are handled on the Exchange, both during Core Trading Hours and when there is a COA in progress. In particular, the proposed changes are intended to help ensure a fair and orderly market by maintaining price/priority of incoming ECOs (including COA-eligible orders) and updated leg markets. Similarly, the proposed changes are designed to promote just and equitable principles by seeking to execute as much interest as possible at the best possible price(s).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes regarding Core Trading Order Allocation, which do not alter the substance of the rule but instead condense and streamline the rule text, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed changes are designed to protect investors and the public interest by making the Exchange's rules more clear, concise, transparent and internally consistent, which enhances the overall comprehensibility to investors without altering the operation of the rule. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, although it does not alter the substance of the rule, the proposed rule text regarding Core Trading Order Allocation provides additional specificity regarding processing of ECOs against same-priced contra-side interest and, in particular, under what circumstances the leg markets would have first priority to execute against an incoming marketable ECO. The Exchange believes this additional transparency, which makes the rule clearer and more complete for market participants, would encourage additional ECOs to be directed to the Exchange.
Overall, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the COA Process maximize execution opportunities for the initiating COA-eligible Order, RFR Responses and ECOs entered during the COA, and the leg markets at the best possible price consistent with the principles of price/time priority, which would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed changes are designed to protect investors and the public interest.
In particular, the proposed rule text promotes transparency regarding the definition of what constitutes a COA-eligible order and the circumstances under which an arriving COA-eligible order would receive an immediate execution (
Regarding interest that arrives during a COA in progress, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule text provides clarity regarding the impact of opposite- and same-side ECOs or COA-eligible orders on the COA Process, which promotes transparency and adds clarity to Exchange rules. Moreover, the Exchange notes that because the COA is intended to operate seamlessly with the Consolidated Book, the proposed changes would promote just and equitable principles of trade by providing price-improvement opportunities for COA-eligible orders while at the same time providing an opportunity for such orders to interact with orders or quotes received during the RTI, including incoming ECOs. In addition, the Exchange believes that this practice of honoring the updated leg markets would help ensure a fair and orderly market by maintaining the priority of quotes and orders on the Consolidated Book as they update. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the COA would increase the number of options orders that are provided with the opportunity to receive price improvement.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed modification regarding when the balance of an initiating (or incoming) COA-eligible order would
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes, which clarify the priority and order allocation and processing of COA-eligible orders would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed changes are designed to protect investors and the public interest by making the Exchange's rules more clear, concise, transparent and internally consistent, which enhances the overall comprehensibility to investors without altering the operation of the rule. For example, the Exchange believes that the revised rule text describing the execution of COA-Eligible orders provides clarity regarding the allocation of COA-eligible orders against any RFR Responses or incoming ECOs and makes clear that a COA-eligible order would only execute against the leg markets after any auction allocations have been made. The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes would conform to the Exchange's price/time priority model and reduce the potential for investor confusion.
The Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive, technical changes, including updated cross references that conform rule text to proposed changes, promotes just and equitable principles of trade, fosters cooperation and coordination among persons engaged in facilitating securities transactions, and removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring that members, regulators and the public can more easily navigate the Exchange's rulebook and better understand the defined terms used by the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage increased submission of ECOs, as well as increased participation in COAs, which will add liquidity to the Exchange to the benefit all market participants and is therefore pro-competitive. The proposal does not impose an intra-market burden on competition, because these changes make the rule clearer and more complete for all participants. Nor does the proposal impose a burden on competition among the options exchanges, because of the vigorous competition for order flow among the options exchanges. To the extent that market participants disagree with the particular approach taken by the Exchange herein, market participants can easily and readily direct complex order flow to competing venues.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 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 July 21, 2017, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the Exchange's proposal, the comments received, and any response to the comments by the Exchange.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to update and amend its options rules, as described herein, to reduce unnecessary complexity and to promote standardization and clarity.
The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update and amend its options rules as follows: (1) Delete Rules 965 and 970 and replace them with new Rules 915NY, 915.1NY, 915.2NY and 915.3NY, in order to update its rules governing the verification of compared trades and the reconciliation of uncompared trades, and simultaneously to conform the Exchange's rules to the rules of NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), its affiliated exchange, and to update the cross-references to Rules 965 and 970 in Rules 900F and 900H accordingly; (2) amend Rule 900.2NY(29) to clarify the definition of Floor Market Maker; (3) amend Rule 902NY to replace an outdated reference to the Options Surveillance Department; (4) amend Rule 920NY(a) to clarify the definition of Market Maker and to conform the Exchange's rules to the rules of NYSE Arca; (5) amend Rule 930NY to replace the definition of “Professional Customer” with “Qualified Customer” in connection with the limited public business that qualified Floor Brokers and their Floor Clerks may conduct; (6) amend Rule 934NY to update the
In order to update its rules governing the reconciliation of uncompared trades and to conform its rules to the rules of NYSE Arca, its affiliated exchange, the Exchange proposes to delete Rules 965 and 970 and its commentary,
Proposed Rules 915NY
Specifically, new proposed Rule 915NY and its associated commentary (which is based upon NYSE Arca Rule 6.17-O and its commentary) would add greater specificity in connection with the obligations of ATP Holders to both verify compared trades
New proposed Rule 915.1NY (which is based upon NYSE Arca Rule 6.18-O) would replace Rule 965. Rule 965 is textually identical to NYSE Arca 6.18-O.
New proposed Rule 915.2NY (which is based upon Arca Rule 6.19-O),
New proposed Rule 915.3NY and its commentary (which is based upon Arca Rule 6.21-O and its commentary)
The Exchange believes that the deliberate assemblage of the provisions concerning the resolution of uncompared trades in a separate new rule, new proposed Rule 9.15.3NY, along with the assembly of the associated rules governing the verification of compared trades and the reconciliation of uncompared trades, the issuance of an unreconciled trade report, and the reporting of compared trades to OCC, in new proposed Rules 915NY, 915.1NY and 915.2NY, respectively, would clarify, update and make uniform the rules governing the post-trade processing of options transactions, and would accelerate the reconciliation process for uncompared options transactions, thereby reducing any potential risks or inefficiencies inherent in the continued use of outdated Rules 965 and 970.
Finally, in a further effort at standardization and clarity, the Exchange proposes to add the new rules to the “NY” series of its rulebook, which contains the rules principally applicable to the trading of options contracts. In order to provide further clarification concerning its rules, the Exchange also proposes to replace the cross-references to Rules 965 and 970 in Rules 900F and Rule 900H with updated cross-references to proposed Rules 915NY, 915.1NY, 915.2NY, and 915.3NY.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 900.2NY(29) to streamline the definition of Floor Market Maker. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 900.2NY(29) so that the proposed definition would read “The term `Floor Market Maker' shall mean a registered Market Maker who makes transactions as a dealer-specialist while on the Floor of the Exchange.” In connection with this change, the Exchange proposes to eliminate “and provides quotations: (A) Manually, by public outcry, and (B) electronically through an auto-quoting device” as an unnecessarily repetitive description of a Floor Market Maker's activity, in an effort to promote further clarification in its rulebook.
In order to further update and clarify the Exchange's rules governing conduct on the options trading floor, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 902NY(f) to replace an outdated reference to the “Options Surveillance Department” with “NYSE Regulation”, the current operative entity to which complaints from ATP Holders may be directed. NYSE Regulation currently oversees the self-regulatory responsibilities and functions of the Exchange.
In order to add further clarification to its rulebook, and to conform its definition of Marker Maker to the rules of NYSE Arca, its affiliated exchange, the Exchange also proposes to add “making transactions as a dealer-specialist on the Floor of the Exchange” to the beginning of the first sentence of Rule 920NY, and to delete “verbally on the Trading Floor” and “from on the Trading Floor or remotely from off the Trading Floor” from the end of that sentence.
In order to clarify its rules, the Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 930NY(b)(1) and Rule 930NY(b)(2) to replace the definition of “Professional Customer” with the single-use term “Qualified Customer” in connection with the limited public business that qualified Floor Brokers and their Floor Clerks may conduct. Rule 930NY(b) defines both the permissible conduct of a limited public business and also defines “Professional Customer”, for purposes of Rule 930NY(b), as “not includ[ing] those participants defined in Rule 900.2NY(18A)”.
Furthermore, in order to provide further clarification concerning its rules, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 934NY, its crossing rule, by replacing outdated references to the requirement that execution prices “be equal to or better than the NBBO” with updated cross-references to the Rule 991NY, the current plenary Order Protection Rule. In addition, in connection with both customer-to-customer cross and non-facilitation (regular way) crosses, the Exchange proposes to delete from Rules 934NY(a)(3)(B) and 934NY(b)(3) two sentences that provide that “[t]he orders will be cancelled or posted in the Book if an execution would take place at a price that is inferior to the NBBO”. Rule 991NY would also govern in such situations, and the orders will not be cancelled or posted but would trade through in accord with the exemptions in Rule 991NY.
In order to update and clarify the Exchange's rules governing its order format and system entry requirements, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 955NY to replace an outdated reference to a required timestamp synchronized to the “NIST Clock” with a reference to Rule 6820, the current CAT clock synchronization rule. Specifically, in connection with Rule 955NY(d)(2)(A), which governs contingency reporting procedures when an exception to the EOC (Electronic Order Capture System) applies, the Exchange proposes to delete an outdated reference to “(a timestamp synchronized with the National Institute of Standards and Technology Atomic Clock in Boulder Colorado `NIST Clock' will be available at all ATP Holder booths[sic]” and instead add the requirement that all order events must conform to the requirements of Rule 6820. For further clarity, the Exchange also proposes to delete “immediately” from the text of the rule because Rule 6820 sets the operative standard.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to conform its rule governing the priority of complex orders in open outcry to its rule governing Electronic Complex Orders. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to conform Rule 963NY(d) to Rule 980NY(b) by amending Rule 963NY(d) to provide that a Complex Order and Stock/Complex Orders may be executed at a “total or” net debit or credit price.
The proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b)
Specifically, the Exchange believes that conforming its definitional rules to the rules of an affiliated exchange, updating its rules by deleting and updating outdated cross-references, eliminating extraneous or redundant, and therefore potentially confusing or ambiguous, language, clarifying a duplicative definition, updating a cross-reference to a current operative rule or operative entity, and updating its post-trading verification and reconciliation rules, and conforming its rules to the rules of an affiliated exchange governing the same subject matter, would remove impediments to and perfect a national market system by simplifying the functionality and complexity of its rules and regulatory requirements. The Exchange also believes that these proposed amendments would be consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors would not be harmed and, in fact, would benefit from this simplification, updating and clarification. Further, the Exchange believes that investors would benefit from the added transparency and clarity of the Exchange's rules.
In addition, the Exchange believes, that by updating and conforming its rules governing the verification of compared trades and the reconciliation of uncompared trades to the rules of NYSE Arca, its affiliated exchange, by streamlining the definition of Floor Market Maker by eliminating extraneous language, by updating and clarifying the Exchange's rules governing conduct on the options trading floor by replacing an outdated reference to the “Options Surveillance Department” with “NYSE Regulation”, by updating and conforming its definition of Market Maker to the definition of NYSE Arca and deleting redundant and therefore potentially confusing language, by replacing the definition of “Professional Customer” with the single-use term “Qualified Customer” in connection with the limited public business that qualified Floor Brokers and their Floor Clerks may conduct, by amending its crossing rule by replacing outdated and potentially ambiguous references to the NBBO with cross-references to the current plenary Order Protection Rule, by updating and clarifying its rules governing its order format and system entry requirements by replacing an outdated reference with a reference to the current operative CAT time synchronization rule, and by conforming its rule governing the priority of complex orders in open outcry to its rule governing Electronic Complex Orders, would also promote just and equitable principles of trade, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, would help to protect investors and the public interest by providing transparency as to which rules are operable, and by reducing potential confusion that may result from having outdated or redundant rules or cross-references in the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule changes would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring that members, regulators and the public can more easily navigate and understand the Exchange's rulebook.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes are not designed to address any competitive issue but would instead update, remove, and clarify outdated cross-references and definitions, and redundant language, and also conform the Exchange's rules and definitions to the rules of another exchange, thereby reducing confusion and making the Exchange's rules easier to understand and navigate.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change 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 such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31E relating to the Minimum Trade
Size modifier.
The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31E relating to the Minimum Trade Size (“MTS”) modifier. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to make the MTS modifier available for Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Orders
The MTS modifier is currently available for Limit IOC Orders,
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to make MTS modifier functionality available for additional non-displayed orders that do not route,
To effect this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to move all references to MTS modifiers in Rule 7.31E to proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3), as a new additional order instruction and modifier to be referred to as the “Minimum Trade Size (`MTS') Modifier.” As proposed, Rule 7.31E(i)(3) would provide that a Limit IOC Order, MPL Order, Tracking Order, Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Order, or Discretionary Pegged Order may be designated with an MTS Modifier. Because this proposed rule text would specify which orders would be eligible for the MTS Modifier, the Exchange proposes to delete existing rule text specifying which orders are and are not eligible for an MTS.
Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(A) would provide that an MTS must be a minimum of a round lot and that an order with an MTS Modifier would be rejected if the MTS is less than a round lot or if the MTS is larger than the size of the order. This proposed rule text is based on the next-to-last sentence of Rule 7.31E(b)(2)(A) and the first sentence of 7.31E(d)(3)(D), and in part on the first sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(4)(C), with non-substantive differences to use common terminology when applying this requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS Modifier.
Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(B) would provide that an ETP Holder must specify one of the following instructions with respect to how an order with an MTS Modifier would trade at the time of entry. This proposed text is new and reflects the Exchange's proposal to add an alternative to how an order with an MTS Modifier would trade on entry. Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(B)(i) would describe the existing functionality as one of the instructions that would be available to ETP Holders. The proposed rule would provide that an order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier would trade with sell (buy) orders in the Exchange Book that in the aggregate meet such order's MTS. This proposed rule text is based on the third sentence of Rule 7.31E(b)(2)(A) and the second sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(D) with non-substantive differences to use common terminology when applying this requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS Modifier.
Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(B)(ii) would describe the new instruction that on entry, an order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier could trade with individual sell (buy) order(s) in the Exchange Book that each meets such order's MTS. Because the Exchange is not proposing to change how an MTS Modifier would function for Limit IOC Orders, the Exchange further proposes
Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(C) would provide that an order with an MTS Modifier that is designated Day and cannot be satisfied on arrival would not trade and would be ranked in the Exchange Book. This proposed rule text is based on the third sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(D) with non-substantive differences to reference orders designated Day so that this proposed rule text would also be applicable to Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Orders and Discretionary Pegged Orders, which are also designated Day.
Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(D) would provide that an order with an MTS Modifier that is designated IOC and cannot be immediately satisfied would be cancelled in its entirety. This proposed rule text is based on the last sentence of Rule 7.31E(b)(2)(A), with non-substantive differences to specify that this functionality would be applicable to any orders designated IOC that have an MTS Modifier,
Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E) would provide that a resting order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier would trade with individual sell (buy) order(s) that each meets the MTS. This proposed rule text is based on the fourth sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(D) with a non-substantive difference to use the same terminology as proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(B)(ii) because a resting order with an MTS Modifier only trades if contra-side individual orders each meets such order's MTS. The Exchange proposes non-substantive differences to use common terminology when applying this requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS Modifier.
Proposed Rules 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(i)-(iii) would set forth additional requirements for how a resting order with an MTS Modifier would trade. Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(i) would provide that if a sell (buy) order does not meet the MTS of the resting order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier, that sell (buy) order would not trade with and may trade through such order with an MTS Modifier. This proposed rule text is based on the fifth sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(D) and the second sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(4)(C) with non-substantive differences to use common terminology when applying this requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS Modifier.
Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(ii) would provide that if a resting sell (buy) order did not meet the MTS of a same-priced resting order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier, a subsequently arriving sell (buy) order that meets the MTS would trade ahead of the resting sell (buy) order. This proposed rule text is based on the second sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(4)(C) with non-substantive differences to use common terminology when applying this requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS Modifier.
Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(iii) would provide that a resting order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier would not be eligible to trade if sell (buy) order(s) ranked Priority 2—Display Orders are displayed on the Exchange Book at a price lower (higher) than the working price of such MTS Order. This proposed rule is new and is designed to ensure that a non-displayed order with an MTS Modifier that is resting on the Exchange Book would not trade at a price that crosses the price of a displayed contra-side order.
For example, if the PBBO
As a related matter, the Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.46E (Tick Size Pilot Plan) to establish how the Exchange would process orders with an MTS Modifier for Pilot Securities in Test Group Three. Proposed Rule 7.46E(f)(5)(I) would provide that for such securities, a resting order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier would not be eligible to trade if sell (buy) order(s) ranked Priority 2—Display Orders are displayed on the Exchange Book at a price
For example, if the PBBO is $10.10 × $10.20 and there is a resting MPL Order to buy with an MTS Modifier for 100 shares that has a working price of $10.15 (“Order A”), a later-arriving Limit Order to sell ranked Priority 2—Display Orders for 50 shares priced at $10.15 (“Order B”) would not be eligible to trade with Order A because it does not meet Order A's MTS, would not change the PBBO, and, pursuant to proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(ii), would rest on the Exchange Book internally locking the price of Order A. To avoid a violation of the Tick Size Pilot Plan for Pilot Securities in Test Group Three, Order A would not be eligible to trade if Order B is displayed at Order A's working price until such time that the displayed order no longer internally locks Order A's working price. Order A and Order B would no longer be internally locked if, for example, Order B is cancelled or executed or if the PBBO moves such that the working price of Order A no longer internally locks the display price of Order B.
Proposed Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(F) would provide that a resting order with an MTS Modifier would be cancelled if it is traded in part or reduced in size and the remaining quantity is less than such order's MTS. This proposed rule text is based on the last sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(3)(D) and the last sentence of Rule 7.31E(d)(4)(C) with non-substantive differences to use common terminology when applying this requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS Modifier.
Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed rule change, the Exchange will announce the implementation date of this proposed rule change by Trader Update. The Exchange anticipates that the implementation date will be in the fourth quarter of 2017.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposal to expand the availability of the Exchange's existing MTS Modifier to additional non-displayed, non-routable orders,
The Exchange believes that the proposal would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it would provide ETP Holders with the option for orders with a minimum trade size to trade on entry only with individual orders that each meets the MTS of the incoming order, thereby providing ETP Holders with more control in how such orders could execute. As such, the proposed rule change is based on similar options available for users of minimum trade size functionality on Nasdaq and IEX.
The Exchange believes that the proposal regarding when a resting order with an MTS would be eligible to trade would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, because the proposed rule change would ensure that a non-displayed order does not trade at a price that crosses the price of interest that is displayed on the Exchange, or for Tick Size Pilot Securities in Group Three, so that a non-displayed order would not trade at the same price as contra-side displayed interest in violation of the Tick Size Pilot Plan. This proposed rule change would therefore promote just and equitable principles of trade by ensuring that displayed interest does not get traded through by a non-displayed order.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to rename the “Primary Pegged Order” as the “Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Order” would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it would promote transparency in Exchange rules regarding whether Primary Pegged Orders on the Exchange are displayed.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to address competition by making available on the Exchange functionality that is already available on Nasdaq and IEX. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed rule change would promote competition by providing market participants with an additional venue to which to route non-displayed, non-routable orders with an MTS Modifier.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange filed a proposal to list and trade shares of the iShares Inflation Hedged Corporate Bond ETF (the “Fund”), a series of the iShares U.S. ETF Trust (the “Trust”), under Rule 14.11(i) (“Managed Fund Shares”). The shares of the Fund are referred to herein as the “Shares.”
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under Rule 14.11(i), which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange.
The Shares will be offered by the Trust, which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on June 21, 2011. The Trust is registered with the Commission as an open-end investment company and has filed a registration statement on behalf of the Fund on Form N-1A (“Registration Statement”) with the Commission.
The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will be an actively managed exchange-traded fund that will seek to mitigate the inflation risk of a portfolio composed of U.S. dollar-denominated investment-grade corporate bonds. The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing, under Normal Market Conditions,
The Fund's investments, including derivatives, will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage). That is, while the Fund will be permitted to borrow as permitted under the 1940 Act, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
The Exchange notes that the Fund may also hold certain fixed income securities and cash and cash equivalents in compliance with Rules 14.11(i)(4)(C)(ii) and (iii) in order to collateralize its derivatives positions.
The Exchange represents that, except for the exceptions to BZX Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C) described above, the Fund's proposed investments will satisfy, on an initial and continued listing basis, all of the generic listing standards under BZX Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C) and all other applicable requirements for Managed Fund Shares under Rule 14.11(i). The Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of the Shares of the Fund. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares of the Fund will comply with all other requirements applicable to Managed Fund Shares including, but not limited to, requirements relating to the dissemination of key information such as the Disclosed Portfolio, Net Asset Value, and the Intraday Indicative Value, rules governing the trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts, surveillance, and the information circular, as set forth in Exchange rules applicable to Managed Fund Shares and the orders approving such rules. At least 100,000 Shares will be outstanding upon the commencement of trading.
Moreover, all of the equity securities and futures contracts held by the Fund
As noted above, the Fund will comply with the requirements for Managed Fund Shares related to Disclosed Portfolio, Net Asset Value, and the Intraday Indicative Value. Additionally, the intra-day, closing and settlement prices of exchange-traded portfolio assets, including ETPs and futures, will be readily available from the securities exchanges and futures exchanges trading such securities and futures, as the case may be, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or online information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. Intraday price quotations on swaps, TIPS, and fixed income instruments are available from major broker-dealer firms and from third-parties, which may provide prices free with a time delay or in real-time for a paid fee.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that the Shares will meet each of the initial and continued listing criteria in BZX Rule 14.11(i) except that the Fund may not comply with Rules 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv)(a),
As it relates to Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv)(a), the Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. All of the futures contracts, equity securities, and certain of the listed credit default swaps held by the Fund will trade on markets that are a member of ISG or affiliated with a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying futures contracts, equity securities, and certain of the listed credit default swaps held by the Fund via the ISG from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
The Exchange notes that the Fund will meet and be subject to all other requirements of the Generic Listing Rules and other applicable continued listing requirements for Managed Fund Shares under Rule 14.11(i), including those requirements regarding the Disclosed Portfolio and the requirement that the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time,
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change, rather will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among both market participants and listing venues, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule changes would adopt the Clearing Agency Securities Valuation Framework (“Framework”)
Although the Clearing Agencies would consider the Framework to be a rule, the proposed rule changes do not require any changes to the Rules, By-laws and Organization Certificate of DTC (“DTC Rules”), the Rulebook of GSD (“GSD Rules”), the Clearing Rules of MBSD (“MBSD Rules”), or the Rules & Procedures of NSCC (“NSCC Rules”), as the Framework would be a standalone document.
In their filings with the Commission, the Clearing Agencies included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and discussed any comments they received on the proposed rule changes. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Clearing Agencies have prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Clearing Agencies are proposing to adopt the Framework, which would set forth the securities valuation practices adopted by the Clearing Agencies for (i) securities eligible for clearance and settlement processing by the applicable Clearing Agency and (ii) with respect to the CCPs, eligible securities in their respective Clearing Funds (each, a “CUSIP”). The processes and systems described in the Framework, and any policies, procedures, or other documents created to support those processes, support the Clearing Agencies' compliance with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i)
The Framework would provide that (i) any changes to the Framework must be approved by the Boards or such committee as may be delegated authority by the Boards from time to time pursuant to their charters, (ii) the head of the Securities Valuation team, or a delegate thereof, reviews the Framework at least annually, and (iii) any and all changes to the Framework are subject to regulatory review and approval.
To the extent the Clearing Agencies create any policies, procedures or other documents to support the execution of the Framework, the Framework would provide that such supplemental documentation is subordinate to the Framework, is reasonably and fairly implied by the Framework, and complies in all respects with the provisions of the Framework.
As described in more detail below, the Framework would describe the manner in which the Clearing Agencies identify, measure, monitor, and manage the risks related to the pricing of the CUSIPs. The Framework would set forth the methodology of the Clearing Agencies for using timely price data and for pricing CUSIPs when pricing data are not readily available or reliable. The Framework would also describe the methodology for monitoring pricing data with respect to the CUSIPs.
Each Clearing Agency would value its applicable CUSIP prices (both end-of-day and intraday) primarily via receipt of files from third-party pricing vendors (“Pricing Vendors”).
The Framework would provide that each CUSIP is assigned a primary source Pricing Vendor (“Primary Pricing Vendor”) and a secondary source Pricing Vendor (“Secondary Pricing Vendor”). In the event that the Primary Pricing Vendor becomes unavailable, unreliable, or otherwise unusable with respect to a CUSIP, the Secondary Pricing Vendor would be designated as the replacement for the Primary Pricing Vendor with respect to such CUSIP.
Each Clearing Agency would monitor and review each applicable Pricing Vendor's pricing at least once each business day to determine (i) whether any CUSIP's price has remained unchanged for an extended period, (ii) whether a CUSIP has been dropped from the Pricing Vendor's file, and (iii) whether any other circumstances exist that may call into question the reliability of any CUSIP's price.
Each CUSIP's end-of-day price would be date stamped and identified with its Pricing Vendor source. In the event that both Primary Pricing Vendor and Secondary Pricing Vendor become unavailable, unreliable, or otherwise unusable with respect to a CUSIP for an end-of-day price, the applicable Clearing Agency would assign such CUSIP its last available price.
Each CUSIP's intraday price would be time and date stamped and identified with its Pricing Vendor source. In the event that both Primary Pricing Vendor and Secondary Pricing Vendor become unavailable, unreliable, or otherwise unusable with respect to a CUSIP for a specific intraday interval, the applicable Clearing Agency would assign such CUSIP its last available price.
If pricing data for a CUSIP is not available from Pricing Vendors or if the last available price is deemed to be unreliable or unusable with respect to a CUSIP, the applicable Clearing Agency would establish a price for the CUSIP based on valuation models, where applicable, and in accordance with the policies and procedures that support the Framework.
The Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, the Clearing Agencies believe that the Framework is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act requires that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant with a high degree of confidence.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv) under the Act requires that each covered clearing agency that is a central counterparty establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, uses reliable sources of timely price data and uses procedures and sound valuation models for addressing circumstances in which pricing data are not readily available or reliable.
None of the Clearing Agencies believe that the Framework would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition because the proposed rule changes reflect some of the existing securities valuation practices that the Clearing Agencies employ, which have been designed to assist the Clearing Agencies in using reliable sources of timely price data as well as procedures and sound valuation models for addressing circumstances in which pricing data are not readily available or reliable. The proposed rule changes would not effectuate any changes to the Clearing Agencies' processes described therein as they currently apply to their respective members or participants.
The Clearing Agencies have not solicited or received any written comments relating to this proposal. The Clearing Agencies will notify the Commission of any written comments received by the Clearing Agencies.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule changes, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule changes should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule changes are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of ILLINOIS dated09/15/2017.
Issued on 09/15/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15308 6 and for economic injury is 15309 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Illinois, Wisconsin.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Wisconsin dated 09/18/2017.
Issued on 09/18/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 153106 and for economic injury is 153110.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Wisconsin, Minnesota.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to October 27, 2017.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Paul Mungai, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Office of Specialized and Technical Agencies (IO/STA), U.S. Department of State, 2401 E Street NW., #L409, Washington, DC 20037. Mr. Mungai may be reached on 202-663-2407 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Fellowship applicants (U.S. citizen students at U.S. colleges and universities) will submit descriptions of self-designed proposals for brief travel abroad to conduct work that is consistent with UNESCO's substantive mandate to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms that are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations. The Fellowship is funded through private donations. The information will be reviewed for the purpose of identifying the most meritorious proposals, as measured against the published evaluation criteria.
The U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Office of Specialized and Technical Agencies, Executive Secretariat, U.S. National Commission for UNESCO (IO/STA) will collect this information via electronic submission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before October 16, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0860 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Clarence Garden, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-7489.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
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 27, 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 27, 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
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before November 27, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
VBA uses VA Form 21-8926 to verify that a beneficiary who is receiving REPS benefits based on schoolchild status is enrolled full-time in an approved school and is otherwise eligible for continued benefits. VBA has used the information collected to make such benefit eligibility determinations and ensure REPS payments are issued properly.
This form number has been updated to “21P-8926” from “21-8926” to reflect change of ownership of the form to VBA's Pension and Fiduciary Service.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before November 27, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Brian McCarthy at (202) 461-6345.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
38 U.S.C. 7401 (1),(3), 38 U.S.C. 7302—Part V, Chapter 73, 38 U.S.C. 7403
10-2850—7,450 hours.
10-2850A—29,799 hours.
10-2850C—9,933 hours.
10-2850D—69,896 hours.
FL 10-341a—25,410 hours.
FL 10-341b—6,361 hours.
Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:
10-2850—30 minutes.
10-2850A—30 minutes.
10-2850C—30 minutes.
10-2850D—33 minutes.
FL 10-341a—30 minutes.
FL 10-341b—3 minutes.
10-2850—14,900
10-2850A—59,598
10-2850C—19,866
10-2850D—127,211
FL 10-341a—50,820
FL 10-341b—127,211
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before November 27, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to a WHEN OU marine geophysical survey in the southwest Pacific Ocean. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the notice of our final decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than October 26, 2017.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or 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).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
On May 17, 2017, NMFS received a request from the L-DEO for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to conducting a marine geophysical survey in the southwest Pacific Ocean. On September 13, 2017, we deemed L-DEO's application for authorization to be adequate and complete. L-DEO's request is for take of a small number of 38 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment and Level A harassment. Neither L-DEO nor NMFS expects mortality to result from this activity, and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. The planned activity is not expected to exceed one year, hence, we do not expect subsequent MMPA incidental harassment authorizations would be issued for this particular activity.
Researchers from California State Polytechnic University, California Institute of Technology, Pennsylvania State University, University Southern California, University of Southern Mississippi (USM), University of Hawaii at Manoa, University of Texas, and University of Wisconsin Madison, with funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, propose to conduct three high-energy seismic surveys from the research vessel (R/V)
The North Island two-dimensional (2-D) survey would consist of approximately 35 days of seismic operations plus approximately 2 days of transit and towed equipment deployment/retrieval. The
The proposed surveys would occur within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and territorial sea of New Zealand. The proposed North Island 2-D survey would occur within ~37-43° S. between 180° E. and the east coast of North Island along the Hikurangi margin. The proposed North Island 3-D survey would occur over a 15 x 60 kilometer (km) area offshore at the Hikurangi trench and forearc off North Island within ~38-39.5° S., ~178-179.5° E. The proposed South Island 2-D survey would occur along the Puysegur margin off South Island within ~163-168° E. between 50° S. and the south coast of South Island. Please see Figure 1 and Figure 2 in L-DEO's IHA application for maps depicting the specified geographic region of the proposed surveys.
The proposed study consists of three seismic surveys off the coast of New Zealand in the southwest Pacific Ocean. The proposed surveys include: (1) A 2-D survey along the Hikurangi margin off the east coast of North Island; (2) a deep penetrating 3-D seismic reflection acquisition over a 15 x 60 km area offshore at the Hikurangi trench and forearc off the east coast of North Island; and (3) a 2-D survey along the Puysegur margin off the south coast of South Island. Water depths in the proposed survey areas range from ~50 to >5000 m. The proposed surveys would be conducted within both the territorial sea of New Zealand (from 0-12 nautical miles (nm) from shore) and the EEZ of New Zealand (from 12 to 200 nm from shore). All planned geophysical data acquisition activities would be conducted by L-DEO with onboard assistance by the scientists who have proposed the studies. The vessel would be self-contained, and the crew would live aboard the vessel.
Survey protocols generally involve a predetermined set of survey, or track lines. The seismic acquisition vessel (source vessel) travels down a linear track for some distance until a line of data is acquired, then turns and acquires data on a different track. Representative survey tracklines are shown in Figures 1 and 2 in L-DEO's IHA; however, some deviation in actual track lines could be necessary for reasons such as science drivers, poor data quality, inclement weather, or mechanical issues with the research vessel and/or equipment. The proposed surveys would entail a total of approximately 13,299 km of track lines.
During the two 2-D surveys, the
During the proposed North Island 2-D survey, approximately 5,398 km of track lines would be surveyed, spanning an area off eastern North Island from the south coast to the Bay of Plenty. Approximately 9 percent of the proposed North Island 2-D survey would occur within New Zealand's territorial sea. The main goal of the proposed North Island 2-D survey is to collect seismic data to create images of the plate boundary fault zone and to show other faults and folding of the upper New Zealand plate and the underlying Pacific plate. The data would improve scientific understanding of why the different parts of the same
To achieve the project goals of the North Island 2-D survey, the principal investigators (PIs) and co-PIs propose to use multi-channel seismic (MCS) reflection surveys and seismic refraction data recorded by OBSs to characterize the incoming Hikurangi Plateau and the seaward portion of the accretionary prism, and document subducted sediment variations. The project also includes an onshore/offshore seismic component. A total of 90 short-period seismometers would be deployed on the Raukumara Peninsula. The land seismometers would record seismic energy from the R/V
During the proposed North Island 3-D survey, approximately 3,025 km of track lines would be surveyed within a 15 x 60 km survey area that would begin at the Hikurangi trench and extend to within ~20 km of the shoreline. Approximately 1 percent of the proposed North Island 3-D survey would occur within New Zealand's territorial sea. The main goal of the proposed North Island 3-D survey is to determine what conditions are associated with slow slip behavior, how they differ from conditions associated with subduction zones that generate great earthquakes, and what controls the development of slow-slip faults instead of earthquake prone faults. The PI and co-PIs propose to use MCS surveys to acquire 3-D seismic reflection data offshore New Zealand's Hikurangi trench and forearc. Although not funded through NSF, international collaborators would work with the PIs to achieve the research goals, providing assistance, such as through logistical support and data acquisition and exchange. This international collaborative experiment would record
During the South Island 2-D survey, marine seismic refraction data would be collected along two east-west lines across the plate boundary. One 200-km line would cross the Puysegur Trench at 49° S., and would be occupied by 20 short-period OBSs. A second line at 47.3° S. would be 260 km long with 23 OBSs. MCS profiles would occur along these same two lines (thus each of the two lines would be surveyed twice) as well as in between and within ~100 km north and south of the two OBS lines. Approximately 4,876 km of track lines would be surveyed during the proposed South Island 2-D survey. Approximately 6 percent of those track lines would be within New Zealand's territorial sea.
The main goal of the South Island 2-D survey is to test models for the formation of new subduction zones and to measure several fundamental aspects of this poorly understood process. The study would strive to (1) measure the angle of the new fault which forms the new plate boundary and test ideas of how the faults form; (2) measure the thickness of the oceanic crust at the Puysegur ridge and test models of how the force from the nascent slab is transmitted into the plate; and (3) measure the nature of the faults, especially the thrust faults, on the over-riding plate and test models for how the forces on the over-riding plate change with time. In addition, the airguns would be used as a source of seismic waves that would be recorded onshore of the South Island, to test models for the tectonic evolution and nature of the shallow mantle directly below the plates. To achieve the project goals of the South Island 2-D survey, the PI and co-PIs propose to use MCS surveys to acquire a combination of 2-D MCS and refraction profiles with OBSs along the Puysegur Ridge and Trench south of South Island. Although not funded through NSF, international collaborators would work with the PIs to achieve the research goals, providing assistance, such as through logistical support and data acquisition and exchange. In addition, the collaborators would use land seismometers to record offshore airgun shots to determine the structure of the upper plate.
In addition to the operations of the airgun array, the ocean floor would be mapped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a sub-bottom profiler (SBP). An Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) would be used to measure water current velocities. These would operate continuously during the proposed surveys, but not during transit to and from the survey areas.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see “Proposed Mitigation” and “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting”).
Section 4 of the IHA application summarizes available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. More general information about these species (
In addition to the marine mammal species known to occur in proposed survey areas, there are 16 species of marine mammals with ranges that are known to potentially occur in the waters of the proposed survey areas, but they are categorized as “vagrant” under the New Zealand Threat Classification System (Baker
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals estimated within a particular study or survey area. All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication.
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey area are included in table 2. However, of the species described in Table 2, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of one subspecies, the Maui dolphin, is such that take is not expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. The Maui dolphin is one of two subspecies of Hector's dolphin (the other being the South Island Hector's dolphin), both of which are endemic to New Zealand. The Maui dolphin has been demonstrated to be genetically distinct from the South Island subspecies of Hector's dolphin based on studies of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (Pichler
We have reviewed L-DEO's species descriptions, including life history information, distribution, regional distribution, diving behavior, and acoustics and hearing, for accuracy and completeness. We refer the reader to Section 4 of L-DEO's IHA application, rather than reprinting the information here. Below, for the 38 species that are likely to be taken by the activities described, we offer a brief introduction to the species and relevant stock as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and describe any information regarding local occurrence.
The southern right whale occurs throughout the Southern Hemisphere between ~20° S. and 60° S. (Kenney 2009). Southern right whales calve in nearshore coastal waters during the winter and typically migrate to offshore feeding grounds during summer (Patenaude 2003). Wintering populations off the subantarctic Auckland Islands of New Zealand spend the majority of their time resting or engaging in social interactions regardless of their group type (
Southern right whale sounds and their role in communication have been fully described by Clark (1983) and are categorized into three general classes (blow, slaps, and calls). Calls are generally low frequency (peak frequencies <500 Hertz (Hz)) and one common call—`Up'—has been described to function as a way for individuals to find and make contact with each other.
The available information suggests that southern right whales could be migrating near or within the proposed survey areas during October-March, with the possibility of some individuals calving in nearshore waters off eastern North Island during November. Habitat use (Torres
Humpback whales are found worldwide in all ocean basins. In winter, most humpback whales occur in the subtropical and tropical waters of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres (Muto
Humpback whales were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA) in June 1970. In 1973, the ESA replaced the ESCA, and humpbacks continued to be listed as endangered. NMFS recently evaluated the status of the species, and on September 8, 2016, NMFS divided the species into 14 distinct population segments (DPS), removed the current species-level listing, and in its place listed four DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016). The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. The only DPSs with the potential to occur in the proposed survey areas would be the Oceania DPS and the Eastern Australia DPS; neither of these DPSs is listed under the ESA (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016).
The Bryde's whale occurs in all tropical and warm temperate waters in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans, between 40° N. and 40° S. (Kato and Perrin 2009). It is one of the least known large baleen whales, and it remains uncertain how many species are represented in this complex (Kato and Perrin 2009). Bryde's whales remain in warm (>16 °C) water year-round, and seasonal movements towards the Equator in winter and offshore in summer have been recorded (Kato and Perrin 2009). The Bryde's whale is likely to occur in the Bay of Plenty in the proposed North Island survey area; it is unlikely to occur anywhere else in the North Island or South Island survey areas.
The minke whale has a cosmopolitan distribution ranging from the tropics and sub-tropics to the ice edge in both hemispheres (Jefferson
The Antarctic minke whale has a circumpolar distribution in coastal and offshore areas of the Southern Hemisphere from ~7° S. to the ice edge (Jefferson
The sei whale occurs in all ocean basins (Horwood 2009) but appears to prefer mid-latitude temperate waters (Jefferson
Fin whales are found throughout all oceans from tropical to polar latitudes, however, their overall range and distribution is not well known (Jefferson
The blue whale has a cosmopolitan distribution and tends to be pelagic, only coming nearshore to feed and possibly to breed (Jefferson
Three subspecies of blue whale are recognized:
Blue whale calls have been detected in New Zealand waters year-round (Miller
The pygmy right whale is the smallest, most cryptic and least known of the living baleen whales. Pygmy right whales are found individually or in pairs, although groups of up to 80 whales have been observed. Although little is known about them, it is thought that pygmy right whales do not exhibit common behaviors of other whales such as breaching or displaying their flukes. In one case, a pygmy right whale was observed swimming by undulating the body from head to tail rather than swimming using movement of the tail area and flukes like other cetaceans. Pygmy right whales are strong, fast swimmers (Fordyce 2013).
The pygmy right whale's distribution is circumpolar in the Southern Hemisphere between 30° S. and 55° S. in oceanic and coastal environments (Kemper 2009; Jefferson
Sperm whales are found throughout the world's oceans in deep waters from the tropics to the edge of the ice at both poles (Leatherwood and Reeves 1983; Rice 1989; Whitehead 2002). Sperm whales throughout the world exhibit a geographic social structure where females and juveniles of both sexes occur in mixed groups and inhabit tropical and subtropical waters. Males, as they mature, initially form bachelor groups but eventually become more socially isolated and more wide-ranging, inhabiting temperate and polar waters as well (Whitehead 2003). Females typically inhabit waters >1000 m deep and latitudes <40° (Rice 1989). Torres
Sperm whales are widely distributed throughout New Zealand waters, occurring in offshore and nearshore regions, with decreasing abundance away from New Zealand toward the central South Pacific Ocean (Gaskin 1973). Sperm whale sightings have been reported throughout the year in and near the proposed North Island survey area, including the Bay of Plenty and off East Cape (Clement 2010; Berkenbusch
Pygmy sperm whales are found in tropical and warm-temperate waters throughout the world (Ross and Leatherwood 1994) and prefer deeper waters with observations of this species in greater than 4,000 m depth (Baird
There have been very few sightings of pygmy sperm whales in New Zealand. The lack of sightings is likely because of their subtle surface behavior and long dive times (Clement 2010). However, the pygmy sperm whale is one of the most regularly stranded cetacean species in New Zealand, suggesting that this species is relatively common in those waters (Clement 2010). Pygmy sperm whales are likely to occur near the North Island survey area but are less likely to occur in the South Island survey area.
Cuvier's beaked whale is the most widespread of the beaked whales occurring in almost all temperate, subtropical, and tropical waters and even some sub-polar and polar waters (MacLeod
Cuvier's beaked whales strand relatively frequently in New Zealand; at least 82 strandings have been reported (Berkenbusch
Arnoux's beaked whale is distributed in deep, temperate and subpolar waters of the Southern Hemisphere, with most
Based on known records, it is likely that Shepherd's beaked whale has a circumpolar distribution in the cold temperate waters of the Southern Hemisphere (Mead 1989a). This species is primarily known from strandings, most of which have been recorded in New Zealand (Mead 2009). Thus, MacLeod and Mitchell (2006) suggested that New Zealand may be a globally important area for Shepherd's beaked whale. However, only a few sightings of live animals have been reported for New Zealand (MacLeod and Mitchell 2006). One possible sighting was made near Christchurch (Watkins 1976). In 2016, there were two sightings of Shepherd's beaked whale on a winter survey offshore from the Otago Peninsula on the South Island (NZDOC 2017b). At least 20 specimens have stranded on the coast of New Zealand (Baker 1999), including in southern Taranaki Bight and Banks Peninsula (Brabyn 1991). Stranding records also exist for Mahia Peninsula and northeastern North Island (Thompson
Hector's beaked whale is thought to have a circumpolar distribution in deep oceanic temperate waters of the Southern Hemisphere (Pitman 2002). Based on the number of stranding records for the species, it appears to be relatively rare. One individual was observed swimming close to shore off southwestern Australia for periods of weeks before disappearing (Gales
MacLeod and Mitchell (2006) suggested that New Zealand may be a globally important area for this species. There are sighting and stranding records of Hector's beaked whales for New Zealand (MacLeod
True's beaked whale has a disjunct, antitropical distribution in the Northern and Southern hemispheres (Jefferson
The southern bottlenose whale can be found throughout the Southern Hemisphere from 30° S. to the ice edge, with most sightings occurring from ~57° S. to 70° S. (Jefferson
Gray's beaked whale is thought to have a circumpolar distribution in temperate waters of the Southern Hemisphere (Pitman 2002). Gray's beaked whale primarily occurs in deep waters beyond the edge of the continental shelf (Jefferson
New Zealand has been reported as a hotspot for beaked whales (MacLeod and Mitchell 2006), with both sightings and strandings of Gray's beaked whales in the proposed survey area (MacLeod
Andrew's beaked whale has a circumpolar distribution in temperate waters of the Southern Hemisphere (Baker 2001). This species is known only from stranding records between 32° S. and 55° S., with more than half of the strandings occurring in New Zealand (Jefferson
There have been at least 19 strandings in New Zealand (Berkenbusch
The strap-toothed beaked whale is thought to have a circumpolar distribution in temperate and sub-Antarctic waters of the Southern Hemisphere, mostly between 35° and 60° S. (Jefferson
New Zealand has been reported as a hotspot for beaked whales (MacLeod and Mitchell 2006), with both sightings and strandings of strap-toothed beaked whales adjacent to the proposed survey area (MacLeod
Blainville's beaked whale is found in tropical and warm temperate waters of all oceans; it has the widest distribution throughout the world of all mesoplodont species and appears to be common (Pitman 2009b). In the western Pacific, strandings have been reported from Japan to Australia and New Zealand (MacLeod
The spade-toothed beaked whale is the name proposed for the species formerly known as Bahamonde's beaked whale (M. bahamondi). Recent genetic evidence has shown that they belong to the species first identified by Gray in 1874 (van Helden
Bottlenose dolphins are widely distributed throughout the world in tropical and warm-temperate waters (Perrin
The short-beaked common dolphin is found in tropical to cool temperate oceans around the world, and ranges as far south as ~40° S. (Perrin 2009). It is generally considered an oceanic species (Jefferson
The short-beaked common dolphin is likely the most common cetacean species in New Zealand waters, occurring there year-round (Clement 2010; Hutching 2015). Numerous sightings have been made in shelf waters of the east coast of North and South Islands, as well as farther offshore, throughout the year, including within the proposed survey areas (Clement 2010; Berkenbusch
The dusky dolphin is found throughout the Southern Hemisphere, occurring in disjunct subpopulations in the waters off southern Australia, New Zealand (including some sub-Antarctic Islands), central and southern South America, and southwestern Africa (Jefferson
Sightings of dusky dolphins exist for shelf as well as deep, offshore waters (Berkenbusch
The hourglass dolphin occurs in all parts of the Southern Ocean south of ~45° S., with most sightings between 45° S. and 60° S. (Goodall 2009). Although it is pelagic, it is also sighted near banks and Islands (Goodall 2009). Baker (1999) noted that the hourglass dolphin is considered a rare coastal visitor to New Zealand. Berkenbusch
The southern right whale dolphin is distributed between the Subtropical and Antarctic Convergences in the Southern Hemisphere, generally between ~30° S. and 65° S. (Jefferson
At least 16 strandings have been reported for New Zealand (Berkenbusch
Risso's dolphins are found in tropical to warm-temperate waters (Carretta
According to Jefferson
Hector's dolphins are endemic to New Zealand and have one of the most restricted distributions of any cetacean (Dawson and Slooten 1988); they occur in New Zealand waters year-round (Berkenbusch
Historically, Hector's dolphins are thought to have ranged along almost the entire coastlines of both the North and South Islands of New Zealand, though their present range is substantially smaller (Pichler 2002). The South Island Hector's dolphin is found only off the coast of the South Island of New Zealand (L. Manning and K. Grantz, 2016). There are at least three genetically separate populations of Hector's dolphin off South Island: Off the east coast (particularly around Banks Peninsula), off the west coast, and off the Southland coast of southern South Island (Baker
The false killer whale is found in all tropical and warm temperate oceans of the world, with only occasional sightings in cold temperate waters (Baird 2009b). It is known to occur in deep, offshore waters (Odell and McClune 1999), but can also occur over the continental shelf and in nearshore shallow waters (Jefferson
Berkenbusch
Killer whales have been observed in all oceans and seas of the world (Leatherwood and Dahlheim 1978). Although reported from tropical and offshore waters (Heyning and Dahlheim 1988), killer whales prefer the colder waters of both hemispheres, with greatest abundances found within 800 km of major continents (Mitchell 1975). High densities of the species occur in high latitudes, especially in areas where prey is abundant.
The killer whale has been reported to be common in New Zealand waters (Baker 1999), with a population of ~200 individuals (Suisted and Neale 2004). Killer whales have been sighted in all months around North and South Islands (Berkenbusch
Long-finned pilot whales roam throughout the cold temperate waters of the Southern Hemisphere. They live in stable family groups, and offspring of both sexes stay in their mother's pod throughout their lives. Each pod numbers 20-100 whales, though they can congregate in much larger numbers. Pilot whales are prolific stranders, and this behavior is not well understood. There are recordings of individual strandings all over New Zealand, and there are a few mass stranding “hotspots” at Golden Bay, Stewart Island, and the Chatham Islands. Due to this, it is possible for the proposed survey to encounter species.
Short finned pilot whales tend to inhabit more sub-tropical and tropical zones. Although long-finned and short-finned pilot whales are readily distinguishable by differences in tooth count, flipper length, and skull morphology, it is almost impossible to distinguish between the two species at sea. The species prefers deeper waters, ranging from 324 m to 4,400 m, with most sightings between 500 m and 3,000 m (Baird 2016).
Short-finned pilot whale stranding records exist for the Bay of Plenty, East Cape, Hawke's Bay, off Banks Peninsula, and the southeast coast of South Island. While most pilot whales sighted south of ~40° S., would likely be the long-finned variety, short-finned pilot whales could also be encountered during the survey, particularly off the northeast coast of North Island.
The spectacled porpoise is circumpolar in cool temperate, sub-Antarctic, and low Antarctic waters (Goodall 2009). It is thought to be oceanic in temperate to sub-Antarctic waters and is often sighted in deep waters far from land (Goodall 2009).
New Zealand fur seals are found on rocky shores around the mainland, Chatham Islands and the Subantarctic islands (including Macquarie Island) of New Zealand. They are also found much further afield in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Off Otago, New Zealand fur seal's prey stay very deep underwater during the day, and then come closer to the surface at night. Here, fur seals feed almost exclusively at night, when prey is closer to the surface, as deep as 163 m during summer. Their summer foraging is concentrated over the continental shelf, or near the slope. They will dive continuously from sundown to sunrise. In autumn and winter, they dive much deeper with many dives greater than 100 m. At least some females dive deeper than 240 m, and from satellite tracking they may forage up to 200 km beyond the continental slope in water deeper than 1000 m (NZDOC 2017a).
On the east coast of North Island, there are at least 15 haul-out sites and three breeding areas between Cape Palliser and Bay of Plenty, including haul out sites along Hawke's Bay, on East Cape, and in the Bay of Plenty (Clement 2010). In addition, there are also at least two haul-out sites along the northeast coast of South Island (Taylor
The New Zealand sea lion is New Zealand's only endemic pinniped. It is one of the world's rarest pinnipeds, with a highly restricted breeding range between 50 ° S. and 53 ° S., primarily on the Auckland (50 ° S., 166 ° E.) and Campbell islands (52°33 S., 169°09 E.) (Gales & Fletcher 1999; McNally 2001; Childerhouse
Sea lions that were satellite-tracked in the Auckland Islands during January and February foraged over the entire shelf out to a water depth of 500 m (Chilvers 2009; Meynier
Adult leopard seals are normally found along the edge of the Antarctic pack ice but in winter, young animals move throughout the Southern Ocean and occasionally occur in New Zealand, including the Auckland and Campbell Islands, and the mainland (NZDOC 2017a). Auckland and Campbell islands are known to have leopard seals annually and the mainland regularly receives visitors (NZDOC 2017a). Numerous sightings have been made along the North and South Islands, not only in the winter but also during January-March (NZDOC 2017b). Sightings for the North Island include Cook Strait, Cape Palliser, the Bay of Plenty, and Hauruki Gulf; there is also one record for offshore waters of the study area off the southeast coast of North Island. For the South Island, sightings have been reported on all coasts, including Forveaux Strait and Stewart Island off the south coast, and in offshore waters off the southeast coast of Stewart Island during January-March.
The southern elephant seal has a near circumpolar distribution in the Southern Hemisphere (Jefferson
Even though mainland New Zealand is not part of their regular distribution, juvenile southern elephant seals are sometimes seen over the shelf of South Island (van den Hoff
• Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with best hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz;
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
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. Thirty-eight marine mammal species have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities (Table 2). Of the cetacean species that may be present, 9 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 “Proposed 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.
This section contains a brief technical background on sound, the characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals found later in this document.
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in Hz or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave (length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the “loudness” of a sound and is typically described using the relative unit of the decibel (dB). A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a measured pressure and a reference pressure (for underwater sound, this is 1 microPascal (μPa)) and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to large changes in sound pressure. The source level (SL) represents the SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa) while the received level is the SPL at the listener's position (referenced to 1 μPa).
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper,
Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 μPa
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions (omnidirectional sources), as is the case for pulses produced by the airgun arrays considered here. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson
• Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of naturally occurring ambient sound for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf sound becomes important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5 km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band during heavy surf conditions.
Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the water surface can become an important component of total sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet times.
Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to ambient sound levels, as can some fish and snapping shrimp. The frequency band for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz.
Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient sound related to human activity include transportation (surface vessels), dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Vessel noise typically dominates the total ambient sound for frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate rapidly. Sound from identifiable anthropogenic sources other than the activity of interest (
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and human activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types: Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (
Pulsed sound sources (
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (
Airgun arrays produce pulsed signals with energy in a frequency range from about 10-2,000 Hz, with most energy radiated at frequencies below 200 Hz. The amplitude of the acoustic wave emitted from the source is equal in all directions (
As described above, a Kongsberg EM 122 MBES, a Knudsen Chirp 3260 SBP, and a Teledyne RDI 75 kHz Ocean Surveyor ADCP would be operated continuously during the proposed surveys, but not during transit to and from the survey areas. Due to the lower
Here, we discuss the effects of active acoustic sources on marine mammals.
Richardson
We describe the more severe non-auditory physical or physiological effects only briefly as we do not expect that use of the airgun arrays is reasonably likely to result in such effects (see below for further discussion). Potential effects from impulsive sound sources can range in severity from effects such as behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton
1.
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear (
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, and there is no PTS data for cetaceans but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least several decibels above (a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset;
For mid-frequency cetaceans in particular, potential protective mechanisms may help limit onset of TTS or prevent onset of PTS. Such mechanisms include dampening of hearing, auditory adaptation, or behavioral amelioration (
TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals.
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 (
Finneran
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise) exposed to a limited number of sound sources (
Critical questions remain regarding the rate of TTS growth and recovery after exposure to intermittent noise and the effects of single and multiple pulses. Data at present are also insufficient to construct generalized models for recovery and determine the time necessary to treat subsequent exposures as independent events. More information is needed on the relationship between auditory evoked potential and behavioral measures of TTS for various stimuli. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall
2.
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
Visual tracking, passive acoustic monitoring, and movement recording tags were used to quantify sperm whale behavior prior to, during, and following exposure to airgun arrays at received levels in the range 140-160 dB at distances of 7-13 km, following a phase-in of sound intensity and full array exposures at 1-13 km (Madsen
Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure (
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller
Cerchio
Castellote
Seismic pulses at average received levels of 131 dB re 1 µPa
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
Stone (2015) reported data from at-sea observations during 1,196 seismic surveys from 1994 to 2010. When large arrays of airguns (considered to be 500 in
3.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficiently to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
4.
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is man-made, it may be considered harassment when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and lower-frequency signals (
Here, we discuss potential effects of the proposed activity on marine mammals other than sound.
Pace and Silber (2005) also found that the probability of death or serious injury increased rapidly with increasing vessel speed. Specifically, the predicted probability of serious injury or death increased from 45 to 75 percent as vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 kn, and exceeded 90 percent at 17 kn. Higher speeds during collisions result in greater force of impact, but higher speeds also appear to increase the chance of severe injuries or death through increased likelihood of collision by pulling whales toward the vessel (Clyne, 1999; Knowlton
The
It is possible for ship strikes to occur while traveling at slow speeds. For example, a hydrographic survey vessel traveling at low speed (5.5 kn) while conducting mapping surveys off the central California coast struck and killed a blue whale in 2009. The State of California determined that the whale had suddenly and unexpectedly surfaced beneath the hull, with the result that the propeller severed the whale's vertebrae, and that this was an unavoidable event. This strike represents the only such incident in approximately 540,000 hours of similar coastal mapping activity (
Although the likelihood of the vessel striking a marine mammal is low, we require a robust ship strike avoidance protocol (see “Proposed Mitigation”), which we believe eliminates any foreseeable risk of ship strike. We anticipate that vessel collisions involving a seismic data acquisition vessel towing gear, while not impossible, represent unlikely, unpredictable events for which there are no preventive measures. Given the required mitigation measures, the relatively slow speed of the vessel towing gear, the presence of bridge crew watching for obstacles at all times (including marine mammals), and the presence of marine mammal observers, we believe that the possibility of ship strike is discountable and, further, that were a strike of a large whale to occur, it would be unlikely to result in serious injury or mortality. No incidental take resulting from ship strike is anticipated, and this potential effect of the specified activity will not be discussed further in the following analysis.
Marine mammals strand for a variety of reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery interaction, ship strike, unusual oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained concurrently or in series. However, the cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (Geraci
Use of military tactical sonar has been implicated in a majority of investigated stranding events, although one stranding event was associated with the use of seismic airguns. This event occurred in the Gulf of California, coincident with seismic reflection profiling by the R/V
Marine mammals could be affected by accidentally spilled diesel fuel from a vessel associated with proposed survey activities. Quantities of diesel fuel on the sea surface may affect marine mammals through various pathways: Surface contact of the fuel with skin and other mucous membranes, inhalation of concentrated petroleum vapors, or ingestion of the fuel (direct ingestion or by the ingestion of oiled prey) (
Information on seismic airgun impacts to zooplankton, which represent an important prey type for mysticetes, is limited. However, McCauley
In general, impacts to marine mammal prey are expected to be limited due to the relatively small temporal and spatial overlap between the proposed survey and any areas used by marine mammal prey species. The proposed survey would occur over a relatively short time period (90 days) and would occur over a very small area relative to the area available as marine mammal habitat in the Pacific Ocean off New Zealand. We do not have any information to suggest the proposed survey area represents a significant feeding area for any marine mammal, and we believe any impacts to marine mammals due to adverse affects to their prey would be insignificant due to the limited spatial and temporal impact of the proposed survey. However, adverse impacts may occur to a few species of fish and to zooplankton.
Soundscapes are also defined by, and acoustic habitat influenced by, the total contribution of anthropogenic sound. This may include incidental emissions from sources such as vessel traffic, or may be intentionally introduced to the marine environment for data acquisition purposes (as in the use of airgun arrays). Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its frequency content, duration, and loudness and these characteristics greatly influence the potential habitat-mediated effects to marine mammals (please see also the previous discussion on masking under “Acoustic Effects”), which may range from local effects for brief periods of time to chronic effects over large areas and for long durations. Depending on the extent of effects to habitat, animals may alter their communications signals (thereby potentially expending additional energy) or miss acoustic cues (either conspecific or adventitious). For more detail on these concepts see,
Problems arising from a failure to detect cues are more likely to occur when noise stimuli are chronic and overlap with biologically relevant cues used for communication, orientation, and predator/prey detection (Francis and Barber, 2013). Although the signals emitted by seismic airgun arrays are generally low frequency, they would also likely be of short duration and transient in any given area due to the nature of these surveys. As described previously, exploratory surveys such as these cover a large area but would be transient rather than focused in a given location over time and therefore would not be considered chronic in any given location.
In summary, activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat or populations of fish species or on the quality of acoustic habitat. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization 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 use of the seismic airguns have the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be 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 exposure estimate and associated numbers of take proposed for authorization.
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).
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 Table 4 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 estimating the area ensonified above the relevant acoustic thresholds.
The proposed survey would entail use of a 36-airgun array with a total discharge of 6,600 in
For deep and intermediate-water cases, L-DEO determined that the field measurements cannot be used readily to derive mitigation radii, as at those sites the calibration hydrophone was located at a roughly constant depth of 350-500 m, which may not intersect all the SPL isopleths at their widest point from the sea surface down to the maximum relevant water depth for marine mammals of approximately 2,000 m (See Appendix H in NSF-USGS 2011). At short ranges, where the direct arrivals dominate and the effects of seafloor interactions are minimal, the data recorded at the deep and slope sites are suitable for comparison with modeled levels at the depth of the calibration hydrophone. At longer ranges, the comparison with the mitigation model—constructed from the maximum SPL through the entire water column at varying distances from the airgun array—is the most relevant. Please see the IHA application for further discussion of summarized results.
For deep water (>1000 m), L-DEO used the deep-water radii obtained from model results down to a maximum water depth of 2000 m. The radii for intermediate water depths (100-1000 m) were derived from the deep-water ones by applying a correction factor (multiplication) of 1.5, such that observed levels at very near offsets fall below the corrected mitigation curve (See Fig. 16 in Appendix H of NSF-USGS, 2011). The shallow-water radii were obtained by scaling the empirically derived measurements from the Gulf of Mexico calibration survey to account for the differences in tow depth between the calibration survey (6 m) and the proposed surveys (9 m). A simple scaling factor is calculated from the ratios of the isopleths determined by the deep-water L-DEO model, which are essentially a measure of the energy radiated by the source array.
Measurements have not been reported for the single 40-in
L-DEO's modeling methodology is described in greater detail in the IHA application (LGL 2017) and we refer the reader to that document rather than repeating it here. The estimated distances to the Level B harassment isopleth for the
Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary based on marine mammal hearing groups (Table 3), were calculated based on modeling performed by L-DEO using the NUCLEUS software program and the NMFS User Spreadsheet, described below. The updated acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds (
The values for SEL
In order to more realistically incorporate the Technical Guidance's weighting functions over the seismic array's full acoustic band, unweighted spectrum data for the
Inputs to the User Spreadsheets in the form of estimated SLs are shown in Table 6. User Spreadsheets used by L-DEO to estimate distances to Level A harassment isopleths (SEL
Note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used, isopleths produced may be overestimates to some degree, which will ultimately 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 mobile sources, such as the proposed seismic survey, the User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which a stationary animal would not incur PTS if the sound source traveled by the animal in a straight line at a constant speed.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. The best available scientific information was considered in conducting marine mammal exposure estimates (the basis for estimating take).
No systematic aircraft- or ship-based surveys have been conducted for marine mammals in offshore waters of the South Pacific Ocean off New Zealand that can be used to estimate species densities that we are aware of, with the exception of Hector's dolphin surveys that have occurred off the South Island. Densities for Hector's dolphins off the South Island were estimated using averaged estimated summer densities from the most southern stratum of an East Coast South Island survey (Otago) and a West Coast South Island survey (Milford Sound), both in three offshore strata categories (0-4 nm, 4-12 nm, and 12-20 nm; MacKenzie and Clement 2014, 2016). The estimated density for Hector's dolphins for the South Island 2-D survey was based on the proportion of that survey occurring in each offshore stratum.
For cetacean species other than Hector's dolphin, densities were derived from data available for the Southern Ocean (Butterworth
For the remaining cetacean species, the relative abundances of individual species expected to occur in the survey areas were estimated within species groups. The relative abundances of these species were estimated based on several factors, including information on marine mammal observations from areas near the proposed survey areas (
For each species group (
We are not aware of any information regarding at-sea densities of pinnipeds off New Zealand. As such, a surrogate species (northern fur seal) was used to estimate offshore pinniped densities for the proposed surveys. The at-sea density of northern fur seals reported in Bonnell
NMFS acknowledges there is some uncertainty related to the estimated density data and the assumptions used in their calculations. Given the lack of available data on marine mammal density in the proposed survey areas, the approach used is based on the best available data. In recognition of the uncertainties in the density data, we have proposed an additional 25 percent contingency in take estimates to account for the fact that density estimates used to estimate take may be underestimates of actual densities of marine mammals in the survey area.
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate. In order to estimate the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels that would result in Level A harassment or Level B harassment, radial distances from the airgun array to predicted isopleths corresponding to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds are calculated, as described above. Those radial distances are then used to calculate the area(s) around the airgun array predicted to be ensonified to sound levels that exceed the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds. The area estimated to be ensonified in a single day of the survey is then calculated (Table 10), based on the areas predicted to be ensonified around the array and the estimated trackline distance traveled per day. This number is then multiplied by the number of survey days (
Factors including water depth, array configuration, and proportion of each survey occurring within territorial seas (versus within the EEZ) were also accounted for in estimates of ensonified areas. This was accomplished by selecting track lines for a single day (for each of the three proposed surveys) that were representative of the entire proposed survey(s) and using those representative track lines to calculate daily ensonified areas. Daily track line distance was selected depending on array configuration (
Estimated takes for all marine mammal species are shown in Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14. As described above, we propose to authorize the incidental takes that are expected to occur as a result of the proposed surveys within the New Zealand EEZ but outside of the New Zealand territorial sea.
It should be noted that the proposed take numbers shown in Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14 are expected to be conservative for several reasons. First, in the calculations of estimated take, 50 percent has been added in the form of operational survey days (equivalent to adding 50 percent to the proposed line km to be surveyed) to account for the possibility of additional seismic operations associated with airgun testing and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard, and in recognition of the uncertainties in the density estimates used to estimate take as described above. Additionally, marine mammals would be expected to move away from a loud sound source that represents an aversive stimulus, such as an airgun array, potentially reducing the number of Level A takes. However, the extent to which marine mammals would move away from the sound source is difficult to quantify and is therefore not accounted for in the take estimates shown in 11, 12, 13 and 14.
For some marine mammal species, we propose to authorize a different number of incidental takes than the number of incidental takes requested by L-DEO (see Tables 18, 19 and 20 in the IHA application for requested take numbers). For instance, for several species, L-DEO increased the take request from the calculated take number to 1 percent of the estimated population size. We do not believe it is likely that 1 percent of the estimated population size of those species will be taken by L-DEO's proposed survey, therefore we do not propose to authorize the take numbers requested by L-DEO in their IHA application (LGL, 2017). However, in recognition of the uncertainties in the density estimates used to estimate take as described above, we believe it is reasonable to assume that actual takes may exceed numbers of takes calculated based on available density estimates; therefore, we have increased take estimates for all marine mammal species by an additional 25 percent, to account for the fact that density estimates used to estimate take may be underestimates of actual densities of marine mammals in the survey area. Additionally, L-DEO requested authorization for 10 takes of Hector's dolphins during the North Island 2-D survey (LGL, 2017). However, we do not propose to authorize any takes of Hector's dolphins during North Island surveys. We believe the likelihood of the proposed North Island 2-D survey encountering a Hector's dolphin is extremely low. As described above, the North Island subpopulation of Hector's dolphin (aka Maui dolphin) is very unlikely to be encountered during either proposed North Island survey due to the very low estimated abundance of the subpopulation and due to the geographic isolation of the subpopulation (currently limited to the west coast of the North Island). Additionally, while it would be extremely unlikely for the proposed surveys to encounter a Hector's dolphin during North Island surveys, any Hector's dolphin encountered in waters off the North Island would possibly be a member of the Maui dolphin subspecies. As described above, the Maui dolphin is facing a high risk of extinction (Manning and Grantz, 2016) and has a population size estimated at just 55-63 individuals (Hamner
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
(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.
L-DEO has reviewed mitigation measures employed during seismic research surveys authorized by NMFS under previous incidental harassment authorizations, as well as recommended best practices in Richardson
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the activities, L-DEO has proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
(1) Vessel-based visual mitigation monitoring;
(2) Vessel-based passive acoustic monitoring;
(3) Establishment of an exclusion zone;
(4) Power down procedures;
(5) Shutdown procedures;
(6) Ramp-up procedures; and
(7) Vessel strike avoidance measures.
In addition to the mitigation measures proposed by L-DEO, NMFS has proposed the following additional measure: Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation of a beaked whale or kogia spp., a large whale with calf, or a Hector's dolphin (during North Island surveys only) at any distance.
Protected Species Observer (PSO) observations would take place during all daytime airgun operations and nighttime start ups (if applicable) of the airguns. Airgun operations would be suspended when marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, designated Exclusion Zones (as described below). PSOs would also watch for marine mammals near the vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the planned start of airgun operations. PSOs would monitor the entire extent of the modeled Level B harassment zone (Table 4) (or, as far as they are able to see, if they cannot see to the extent of the estimated Level B harassment zone). Observations would also be made during daytime periods when the
During seismic operations, a minimum of four visual PSOs would be based aboard the
The PSOs must have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, record observational data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements. PSO resumes would be provided to NMFS for approval. At least two PSOs must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working as PSOs during a high energy seismic survey, with no more than eighteen months elapsed since the conclusion of the at-sea experience. One “experienced” visual PSO would be designated as the lead for the entire protected species observation team. The lead would coordinate duty schedules and roles for the PSO team and serve as primary point of contact for the vessel operator. The lead PSO would devise the duty schedule such that “experienced” PSOs are on duty with those PSOs with appropriate training but who have not yet gained relevant experience, to the maximum extent practicable.
The PSOs must have successfully completed relevant training, including completion of all required coursework and passing a written and/or oral examination developed for the training program, and must have successfully attained a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the natural sciences and a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the biological sciences and at least one undergraduate course in math or statistics. The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has acquired the relevant skills through alternate training, including (1) secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous work experience conducting academic, commercial, or government-sponsored marine mammal surveys; or (3) previous work experience as a PSO. The PSO should demonstrate good standing and consistently good performance of PSO duties.
In summary, a typical daytime cruise would have scheduled two observers (visual) on duty from the observation platform, and an acoustic observer on the passive acoustic monitoring system.
Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) would take place to complement the visual monitoring program. Visual monitoring typically is not effective during periods of poor visibility or at night, and even with good visibility, is unable to detect marine mammals when they are below the surface or beyond visual range. Acoustic monitoring can be used in addition to visual observations to improve detection, identification, and localization of cetaceans. The acoustic monitoring would serve to alert visual observers (if on duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are detected. It is only useful when marine mammals vocalize, but it can be effective either by day or by night and does not depend on good visibility. It would be monitored in real time so that visual observers can be alerted when marine mammals are detected acoustically.
The PAM system consists of hardware (
At least one acoustic PSO (in addition to the four visual PSOs) would be on board. The towed hydrophones would
When a vocalization is detected, while visual observations are in progress, the acoustic PSO would contact the visual PSOs immediately, to alert them to the presence of marine mammals (if they have not already been detected visually), in order to facilitate a power down or shut down, if required. The information regarding the marine mammal acoustic detection would be entered into a database.
An exclusion zone (EZ) is a defined area within which occurrence of a marine mammal triggers mitigation action intended to reduce the potential for certain outcomes,
In their IHA application, L-DEO proposed to establish EZs based upon modeled radial distances to auditory injury zones (
An appropriate EZ based on cumulative sound exposure level (SEL
Use of monitoring and shutdown or power-down measures within defined exclusion zone distances is inherently an essentially instantaneous proposition—a rule or set of rules that requires mitigation action upon detection of an animal. This indicates that definition of an exclusion zone on the basis of cumulative sound exposure level thresholds, which require that an animal accumulate some level of sound energy exposure over some period of time (
Cumulative SEL thresholds are more relevant for purposes of modeling the potential for auditory injury than they are for dictating real-time mitigation, though they can be informative (especially in a relative sense). We recognize the importance of the accumulation of sound energy to an understanding of the potential for auditory injury and that it is likely that, at least for low-frequency cetaceans, some potential auditory injury is likely impossible to mitigate and should be considered for authorization.
In summary, our intent in prescribing a standard exclusion zone distance is to (1) encompass zones for most species within which auditory injury could occur on the basis of instantaneous exposure; (2) provide additional protection from the potential for more severe behavioral reactions (
Our use of 500 m as the EZ is a reasonable combination of factors. This zone is expected to contain all potential auditory injury for all marine mammals (high-frequency, mid-frequency and low-frequency cetacean functional hearing groups and otariid and phocid pinnipeds) as assessed against peak pressure thresholds (NMFS, 2016) (Tables 7, 8, 9). It is also expected to contain all potential auditory injury for high-frequency and mid-frequency cetaceans as well as otariid and phocid pinnipeds as assessed against SEL
The PSOs would also establish and monitor a 1,000 m buffer zone. During operation of the airgun arrays, occurrence of marine mammals within the 1,000 m buffer zone (but outside the
A power down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use such that the radius of the mitigation zone is decreased to the extent that marine mammals are no longer in, or about to enter, the 500 m EZ. During a power down, one 40-in
Following a power down, airgun activity would not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the 500 m EZ. The animal would be considered to have cleared the 500 m EZ if the following conditions have been met:
☐ It is visually observed to have departed the 500 m EZ, or
☐ it has not been seen within the 500 m EZ for 15 min in the case of small odontocetes and pinnipeds, or
☐ it has not been seen within the 500 m EZ for 30 min in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales.
This power down requirement would be in place for all marine mammals, with the exception of small delphinoids under certain circumstances. As defined here, the small delphinoid group is intended to encompass those members of the Family Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily approach the source vessel for purposes of interacting with the vessel and/or airgun array (
We include this small delphinoid exception because power-down/shutdown requirements for small delphinoids under all circumstances represent practicability concerns without likely commensurate benefits for the animals in question. Small delphinoids are generally the most commonly observed marine mammals in the specific geographic region and would typically be the only marine mammals likely to intentionally approach the vessel. As described below, auditory injury is extremely unlikely to occur for mid-frequency cetaceans (
A large body of anecdotal evidence indicates that small delphinoids commonly approach vessels and/or towed arrays during active sound production for purposes of bow riding, with no apparent effect observed in those delphinoids (
A power down could occur for no more than 30 minutes maximum at any given time. If, after 30 minutes of the array being powered down, marine mammals had not cleared the 500 m EZ (as described above), a shutdown of the array would be implemented (see Shut Down Procedures, below). Power down is only allowed in response to the presence of marine mammals within the designated EZ. Thus, the single 40 in
The single 40-in
The shutdown requirement, like the power down requirement, would be waived for dolphins of the following genera:
In addition to the measures proposed by L-DEO, NMFS also proposes that a shutdown of the acoustic source would also be required, at any distance, upon observation of the following: A large whale (
Ramp-up of an acoustic source is intended to provide a gradual increase in sound levels following a power down or shutdown, enabling animals to move away from the source if the signal is sufficiently aversive prior to its reaching full intensity. The ramp-up procedure involves a step-wise increase in the number of airguns firing and total array volume until all operational airguns are activated and the full volume is achieved. Ramp-up would be required after the array is powered down or shut down due to mitigation. If the airgun array has been shut down for reasons other than mitigation (
Ramp-up would begin by activating a single airgun of the smallest volume in the array and would continue in stages by doubling the number of active elements at the commencement of each stage, with each stage of approximately the same duration.
If airguns have been powered down or shut down due to PSO detection of a marine mammal within or approaching the 500 m EZ, ramp-up would not be initiated until all marine mammals have cleared the EZ, during the day or night. Visual and acoustic PSOs are required to monitor during ramp-up. If a marine mammal were detected by visual PSOs within or approaching the 500 m EZ during ramp-up, a power down (or shut down if appropriate) would be implemented as though the full array were operational. Criteria for clearing the EZ would be as described above.
Thirty minutes of pre-clearance observation are required prior to ramp-up for any power down or shutdown of longer than 30 minutes (
Ramp-up would be planned to occur during periods of good visibility when possible. However, ramp-up would be allowed at night and during poor visibility if the 500 m EZ and 1,000 m buffer zone have been monitored by visual PSOs for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and if acoustic monitoring has occurred for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up with no acoustic detections during that period.
The operator would be required to notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead PSO. A designated PSO must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed. The operator must provide information to PSOs documenting that appropriate procedures were followed. Following deactivation of the array for reasons other than mitigation, the operator would be required to communicate the near-term operational plan to the lead PSO with justification for any planned nighttime ramp-up.
L-DEO proposed that ramp up would not occur following an extended power down (LGL 2017). However, as we do not propose to allow extended power downs during the proposed survey, we also do not include this as a proposed mitigation measure and instead propose that ramp up is required after any power down or shutdown of the array, with the one exception as described above. L-DEO also proposed that ramp up would occur when the airgun array begins operating after 8 minutes without airgun operations (LGL 2017). However, we instead propose the criteria for ramp up as described above.
Vessel strike avoidance measures are intended to minimize the potential for collisions with marine mammals. We note that these requirements do not apply in any case where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply.
The proposed measures include the following: Vessel operator and crew would maintain a vigilant watch for all marine mammals and slow down or stop the vessel or alter course to avoid striking any marine mammal. A visual observer aboard the vessel would monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel according to the parameters stated below. Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone would be either third-party observers or crew members, but crew members responsible for these duties would be provided sufficient training to distinguish marine mammals from other phenomena. Vessel strike avoidance measures would be followed during surveys and while in transit.
The vessel would maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from large whales (
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has determined that the 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 requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
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.
L-DEO submitted a marine mammal monitoring and reporting plan in section XIII of their IHA application. Monitoring that is designed specifically to facilitate mitigation measures, such as monitoring of the EZ to inform potential power downs or shutdowns of the airgun array, are described above and are not repeated here.
L-DEO's monitoring and reporting plan includes the following measures:
As described above, PSO observations would take place during daytime airgun operations and nighttime start ups (if applicable) of the airguns. During seismic operations, at least four visual PSOs would be based aboard the
PSOs would record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data would be used to estimate numbers of animals potentially `taken' by harassment (as defined in the MMPA). They would also provide information needed to order a power down or shutdown of airguns when a marine mammal is within or near the EZ.
When a sighting is made, the following information about the sighting would be recorded:
1. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (
2. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, visibility, and sun glare.
All observations and power downs or shutdowns would be recorded in a standardized format. Data would be entered into an electronic database. The accuracy of the data entry would be verified by computerized data validity checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. These procedures would allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program and would facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, and other programs for further processing and archiving. The time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, visibility, and sun glare would also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch, and during a watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.
Results from the vessel-based observations will provide:
1. The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun power down or shut down).
2. Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS.
3. Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted.
4. Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity.
5. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity.
PAM would take place to complement the visual monitoring program as described above. Please see the Mitigation section above for a description of the PAM system and the acoustic PSO's duties. The acoustic PSO would record data collected via the PAM system, including the following: An acoustic encounter identification number, whether it was linked with a visual sighting, date, time when first and last heard and whenever any additional information was recorded, position and water depth when first detected, bearing if determinable, species or species group (
A report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report would describe the operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report would provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report would summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities). The report would also include estimates of the number and nature of exposures that occurred above the harassment threshold based on PSO observations, including an estimate of those on the trackline but not detected.
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, our analysis applies to all the species listed in Table 2, given that NMFS expects the anticipated effects of the proposed seismic survey to be similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified species-specific factors to inform the analysis. As described above, we propose to authorize only the takes estimated to occur outside of New Zealand territorial sea (Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14); however, for the purposes of our negligible impact analysis and determination, we consider the total number of takes that are expected to occur as a result of the proposed survey, including those within territorial sea. Thus, our negligible impact analysis and determination accounts for the takes that are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed surveys during the portions of those surveys that would occur within the territorial sea (approximately 9 percent of the North Island 2-D survey, 1 percent of the North Island 3-D survey, and 6 percent of the South Island 2-D survey), though we do not propose to authorize the incidental take of marine mammals during those portions of the proposed surveys.
NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would occur as a result of L-DEO's proposed survey, even in the absence of proposed mitigation. Thus the proposed authorization does not authorize any mortality. As discussed in the
We propose to authorize a limited number of instances of Level A harassment of 21 marine mammal species (Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14). However, we believe that any PTS incurred in marine mammals as a result of the proposed activity would be in the form of only a small degree of PTS, not total deafness, and would be unlikely to affect the fitness of any individuals, because of the constant movement of both the
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed previously in this document (see
The activity is expected to impact a small percentage of all marine mammal stocks that would be affected by L-DEO's proposed survey (less than 9 percent for dusky dolphin and less than 2 percent for all other marine mammal species). Additionally, the acoustic “footprint” of the proposed survey would be small relative to the ranges of the marine mammals that would potentially be affected. Sound levels would increase in the marine environment in a relatively small area surrounding the vessel compared to the range of the marine mammals within the proposed survey area.
The proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or
The ESA-listed marine mammal species under our jurisdiction that are likely to be taken by the proposed project include the southern right, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whale (listed as endangered) and the South Island Hector's dolphin (listed as threatened). We propose to authorize very small numbers of takes for these species (Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14), relative to their population sizes, therefore we do not expect population-level impacts to any of these species. The other marine mammal species that may be taken by harassment during the proposed survey are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. There is no designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals within the project area; and of the non-listed marine mammals for which we propose to authorize take, none are considered “depleted” or “strategic” by NMFS under the MMPA.
NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks due to L-DEO's proposed survey would result in only short-term (temporary and short in duration) effects to individuals exposed. Animals may temporarily avoid the immediate area, but are not expected to permanently abandon the area. Major shifts in habitat use, distribution, or foraging success are not expected. NMFS does not anticipate the proposed take estimates to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the marine mammal species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
☐ No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
☐ The anticipated impacts of the proposed activity on marine mammals would primarily be temporary behavioral changes due to avoidance of the area around the survey vessel;
☐ The number of instances of PTS that may occur are expected to be very small in number (Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14). Instances of PTS that are incurred in marine mammals would be of a low level, due to constant movement of the vessel and of the marine mammals in the area, and the nature of the survey design (not concentrated in areas of high marine mammal concentration);
☐ The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during the proposed survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity;
☐ The proposed project area does not contain known areas of significance for mating or calving;
☐ The potential adverse effects on fish or invertebrate species that serve as prey species for marine mammals from the proposed survey would be temporary and spatially limited;
☐ The proposed mitigation measures, including visual and acoustic monitoring, power-downs, and shutdowns, are expected to minimize potential impacts to marine mammals.
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 proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal 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; so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, 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. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities. Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14 provide numbers of take by Level A harassment and Level B harassment proposed for authorization. These are the numbers we use for purposes of the small numbers analysis.
The numbers of marine mammals that we propose for authorization to be taken would be considered small relative to the relevant populations (less than 9 percent for all species) for the species for which abundance estimates are available. No known current worldwide or regional population estimates are available for ten species under NMFS' jurisdiction that could be incidentally taken as a result of the proposed surveys: The pygmy right whale; pygmy sperm whale; True's beaked whale; short-finned pilot whale; false killer whale; bottlenose dolphin; short-beaked common dolphin; southern right whale dolphin; Risso's dolphin; and spectacled porpoise.
NMFS has reviewed the geographic distributions and habitat preferences of these species in determining whether the numbers of takes proposed for authorization herein are likely to represent small numbers. Pygmy right whales have a circumglobal distribution and occur throughout coastal and oceanic waters in the Southern Hemisphere (between 30 to 55° South) (Jefferson
Based on the broad spatial distributions and habitat preferences of these species relative to the areas where the proposed surveys would occur, NMFS preliminarily concludes that the authorized take of these species likely represent small numbers relative to the affected species' overall population sizes, though we are unable to quantify the proposed take numbers as a percentage of population.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily 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 NMFS Permits and Conservation Division is proposing to authorize the incidental take of six species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA (the southern right, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whale and South Island Hector's dolphin). We have requested initiation of Section 7 consultation with the Interagency Cooperation Division for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA section 7 consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to L-DEO for conducting a seismic survey in the Pacific Ocean offshore New Zealand in 2017/2018, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This incidental harassment authorization (IHA) is valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance.
2. This IHA is valid only for marine geophysical survey activity, as specified in L-DEO's IHA application and using an array aboard the R/V
3. General Conditions.
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of L-DEO, the vessel operator and other relevant personnel, the lead protected species observer (PSO), and any other relevant designees of L-DEO operating under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are listed in Table 14. The taking, by Level A and Level B harassment only, is limited to the species and numbers listed in Table 14. Any taking exceeding the authorized amounts listed in Table 14 is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(c) The taking by serious injury or death of any species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(d) During use of the airgun(s), if marine mammal species other than those listed in Table 1 are detected by PSOs, the acoustic source must be shut down to avoid unauthorized take.
(e) L-DEO shall ensure that the vessel operator and other relevant vessel personnel are briefed on all responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, operational procedures, and IHA requirements prior to the start of survey activity, and when relevant new personnel join the survey operations.
4. Mitigation Requirements.
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) L-DEO must use at least five dedicated, trained, NMFS-approved Protected Species Observers (PSOs), including at least four visual PSOs and one acoustic PSO. The PSOs must have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, record observational data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements. PSO resumes shall be provided to NMFS for approval.
(b) At least two PSOs must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working as PSOs during a high energy seismic survey, with no more than eighteen months elapsed since the conclusion of the at-sea experience. At least one of these must have relevant experience as a visual PSO and at least one must have relevant experience as an acoustic PSO. One “experienced” visual PSO shall be designated as the lead for the entire protected species observation team. The lead shall coordinate duty schedules and roles for the PSO team and serve as primary point of contact for the vessel operator. The lead PSO shall devise the duty schedule such that “experienced” PSOs are on duty with those PSOs with appropriate training but who have not yet gained relevant experience, to the maximum extent practicable.
(c) Visual Observation.
(i) During survey operations (
(ii) Visual monitoring must begin not less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up, including for nighttime ramp-ups of the airgun array, and must continue until one hour after use of the acoustic source ceases or until 30 minutes past sunset.
(iii) Visual PSOs shall coordinate to ensure 360° visual coverage around the vessel from the most appropriate observation posts and shall conduct visual observations using binoculars and the naked eye while free from distractions and in a consistent, systematic, and diligent manner.
(iv) Visual PSOs shall communicate all observations to the acoustic PSO, including any determination by the PSO regarding species identification, distance, and bearing and the degree of confidence in the determination.
(v) Visual PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of four consecutive hours
(vi) During good conditions (
(d) Acoustic Observation—The
(i) One acoustic PSO (in addition to the four visual PSOs) must be on board to operate and oversee PAM operations. Either the acoustic PSO or a visual PSO with training in the PAM system must monitor the PAM system at all times while airguns are operating, and when possible during periods when the airguns are not operating, in shifts lasting no longer than six hours.
(ii) Acoustic PSOs shall communicate all detections to visual PSOs, when visual PSOs are on duty, including any determination by the PSO regarding species identification, distance, and bearing and the degree of confidence in the determination.
(iii) Survey activity may continue for brief periods of time if the PAM system malfunctions or is damaged. Activity may continue for 30 minutes without PAM while the PAM operator diagnoses the issue. If the diagnosis indicates that the PAM system must be repaired to solve the problem, operations may continue for an additional two hours without acoustic monitoring under the following conditions:
(A) Daylight hours and sea state is less than or equal to Beaufort sea state 4;
(B) No marine mammals (excluding small delphinids) detected solely by PAM in the exclusion zone in the previous two hours;
(C) NMFS is notified via email as soon as practicable with the time and location in which operations began without an active PAM system; and
(D) Operations with an active acoustic source, but without an operating PAM system, do not exceed a cumulative total of four hours in any 24 hour period.
(e) Exclusion Zone and buffer zone—PSOs shall establish and monitor a 500 m exclusion zone (EZ) and 1,000 m buffer zone. The zones shall be based upon radial distance from any element of the airgun array (rather than being based on the center of the array or around the vessel itself). During use of the acoustic source, occurrence of marine mammals outside the EZ but within 1,000 m from any element of the airgun array shall be communicated to the operator to prepare for potential further mitigation measures as described below. During use of the acoustic source, occurrence of marine mammals within the EZ, or on a course to enter the EZ, shall trigger further mitigation measures as described below.
(i) Ramp-up—A ramp-up procedure, involving a step-wise increase in the number of airguns firing and total array volume until all operational airguns are activated and the full volume is achieved, is required at all times as part of the activation of the acoustic source, including following a power down or shutdown of the array, except as described under 4.(e)(v). Ramp-up shall begin by activating a single airgun of the smallest volume in the array and shall continue in stages by doubling the number of active elements at the commencement of each stage, with each stage of approximately the same duration.
(ii) If the airgun array has been powered down or shut down due to a marine mammal detection, ramp-up shall not occur until all marine mammals have cleared the EZ. A marine mammal is considered to have cleared the EZ if:
(A) It has been visually observed to have left the EZ; or
(B) It has not been observed within the EZ, for 15 minutes (in the case of small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or for 30 minutes (in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales).
(iii) Thirty minutes of pre-clearance observation of the 500 m EZ and 1,000 m buffer zone are required prior to ramp-up for any power down, shutdown, or combination of power down and shutdown of longer than 30 minutes. This pre-clearance period may occur during any vessel activity. If any marine mammal (including delphinids) is observed within or approaching the 500 m EZ during the 30 minute pre-clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting the buffer zone or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sightings (
(iv) During ramp-up, PSOs shall monitor the 500 m EZ and 1,000 m buffer zone. Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal (including delphinids) is observed within or approaching the 500 m EZ. If a marine mammal is observed within or approaching the 500 m EZ during ramp-up, a power down or shutdown shall be implemented as though the full array were operational. Ramp-up may not begin again until the animal(s) has been observed exiting the 500 m EZ or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sightings (
(v) Ramp-up shall only occur at night and at times of poor visibility where operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances. Ramp-up may occur at night and during poor visibility if the 500 m EZ and 1,000 m buffer zone have been continually monitored by visual PSOs for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up with no marine mammal detections and if acoustic monitoring has occurred for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up with no acoustic detections during that period.
(vi) If the airgun array has been shut down for reasons other than mitigation (
(vii) The vessel operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up. A designated PSO must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed.
(f) Power Down Requirements—L-DEO shall power down the airgun array if a PSO detects a marine mammal within, approaching, or entering the 500 m EZ. A power down involves a decrease in the number of operational airguns. During a power down, one 40-in
(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority to call for power down of the airgun array (visual PSOs on duty should be in agreement on the need for power down before requiring such action). When there is certainty regarding the need for mitigation action on the basis of either visual or acoustic detection alone, the relevant PSO(s) must call for such action immediately.
(ii) When both visual and acoustic PSOs are on duty, all detections must be immediately communicated to the remainder of the on-duty PSO team for potential verification of visual observations by the acoustic PSO or of acoustic detections by visual PSOs and initiation of dialogue as necessary.
(iii) The operator must establish and maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and crew controlling the airgun array to ensure that power down commands are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch.
(iv) When power down is called for by a PSO, the power down must occur and any dispute resolved only following power down.
(v) The power down requirement is waived for dolphins of the following genera:
(vi) Upon implementation of a power down, the source may be reactivated under the conditions described at 4(e). Where there is no relevant zone (
(vii) When only the acoustic PSO is on duty and a detection is made, if there is uncertainty regarding species identification or distance to the vocalizing animal(s), the airgun array must be powered down as a precaution.
(viii) Power down shall occur for no more than a maximum of 30 minutes at any given time. If, after 30 minutes of the array being powered down, marine mammals have not cleared the 500 m Exclusion Zone as described under 4(e)(iv), the array shall be shut down. Operation of the single 40-in
(g) Shutdown requirements—An exclusion zone of 100 m for the single 40-in
(h) If, after 30 minutes of the array being powered down, marine mammals have not cleared the 500 m Exclusion Zone as described under 4(e)(iv), the full array shall be shut down.
(i) Upon implementation of a shutdown, the source may be reactivated under the conditions described at 4(e).
(ii) Measures described for power downs under 4(f)(i-v) shall also apply in the case of a shutdown.
(iii) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation of a large whale (
(iv) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation of a beaked whale or kogia spp., at any distance. Ramp up shall not begin until the beaked whale or kogia has not been observed for at least 30 minutes, at any distance.
(v) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation of a Hector's dolphin, at any distance, during the North Island 2-D survey and North Island 3-D survey. Ramp up shall not begin until the Hector's dolphin has not been observed for at least 15 minutes, at any distance.
(i) Vessel Strike Avoidance—Vessel operator and crew must maintain a vigilant watch for all marine mammals and slow down or stop the vessel or alter course to avoid striking any marine mammal. These requirements do not apply in any case where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel according to the parameters stated below. Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone can be either third-party observers or crew members, but crew members responsible for these duties must be provided sufficient training to distinguish marine mammals from other phenomena. Vessel strike avoidance measures shall be followed during surveys and while in transit.
(i) The vessel must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from large whales (
(A) The vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral, and must not engage the engines until the whale has moved outside of the vessel's path and the minimum separation distance has been established.
(B) If the vessel is stationary, the vessel must not engage engines until the whale(s) has moved out of the vessel's path and beyond 100 m.
(ii) The vessel must maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine mammals, with an exception made for animals described in 4(f)(v) that approach the vessel. If an animal is encountered during transit, the vessel shall attempt to remain parallel to the animal's course, avoiding excessive speed or abrupt changes in course.
(iii) Vessel speeds must be reduced to 10 knots or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near the vessel.
(j) Miscellaneous Protocols.
(i) The airgun array must be deactivated when not acquiring data or preparing to acquire data, except as necessary for testing. Unnecessary use of the acoustic source shall be avoided. Notified operational capacity (not including redundant backup airguns) must not be exceeded during the survey, except where unavoidable for source testing and calibration purposes. All occasions where activated source volume exceeds notified operational capacity must be noticed to the PSO(s) on duty and fully documented. The lead PSO must be granted access to relevant instrumentation documenting acoustic source power and/or operational volume.
(ii) Testing of the acoustic source involving all elements requires normal mitigation protocols (
5. Monitoring Requirements.
The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine mammal monitoring during survey activity. Monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the following requirements:
(a) The operator must provide bigeye binoculars (
(b) PSOs must also be equipped with reticle binoculars (
(c) PSO Qualifications.
(i) PSOs must have successfully completed relevant training, including completion of all required coursework and passing a written and/or oral examination developed for the training program.
(ii) PSOs must have successfully attained a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the natural sciences and a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the biological sciences and at least one undergraduate course in math or statistics. The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has acquired the relevant skills through alternate experience. Requests for such a waiver must include written justification. Alternate experience that may be considered includes, but is not limited to (1) secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous work experience conducting academic, commercial, or government-sponsored marine mammal surveys; or (3) previous work experience as a PSO. The PSO should demonstrate good standing and consistently good performance of PSO duties.
(d) Data Collection—PSOs must use standardized data forms, whether hard copy or electronic. PSOs shall record detailed information about any implementation of mitigation requirements, including the distance of animals to the acoustic source and description of specific actions that ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), any observed changes in behavior before and after implementation of mitigation, and if shutdown was implemented, the length of time before any subsequent ramp-up of the acoustic source to resume survey. If required mitigation was not implemented, PSOs should submit a description of the circumstances. NMFS requires that, at a minimum, the following information be reported:
(i) PSO names and affiliations.
(ii) Dates of departures and returns to port with port name.
(iii) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and times corresponding with PSO effort.
(iv) Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort begins and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts.
(v) Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts and upon any line change.
(vi) Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, Beaufort wind force, swell height, weather conditions, cloud cover, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon.
(vii) Factors that may be contributing to impaired observations during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions change (
(viii) Survey activity information, such as acoustic source power output while in operation, number and volume of airguns operating in the array, tow depth of the array, and any other notes of significance (
(ix) If a marine mammal is sighted, the following information should be recorded:
(A) Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform).
(B) PSO who sighted the animal.
(C) Time of sighting.
(D) Vessel location at time of sighting.
(E) Water depth.
(F) Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction).
(G) Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel.
(H) Pace of the animal.
(I) Estimated distance to the animal and its heading relative to vessel at initial sighting.
(J) Identification of the animal (
(K) Estimated number of animals (high/low/best).
(L) Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, calves, group composition, etc.).
(M) Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics).
(N) Detailed behavior observations (
(O) Animal's closest point of approach (CPA) and/or closest distance from the center point of the acoustic source;.
(P) Platform activity at time of sighting (
(Q) Description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting (
(x) If a marine mammal is detected while using the PAM system, the following information should be recorded:
(A) An acoustic encounter identification number, and whether the detection was linked with a visual sighting.
(B) Time when first and last heard.
(C) Types and nature of sounds heard (
(D) Any additional information recorded such as water depth of the hydrophone array, bearing of the animal to the vessel (if determinable), species or taxonomic group (if determinable), and any other notable information.
6. Reporting.
(a) L-DEO shall submit a draft comprehensive report on all activities and monitoring results within 90 days of the completion of the survey or expiration of the IHA, whichever comes sooner. The report must describe all activities conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the activities, must provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring, and must summarize the dates and locations of survey operations and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated survey activities). Geospatial data regarding locations where the acoustic source was used must be provided. In addition to the report, all raw observational data shall be made available to NMFS. The report must summarize the data collected as required under condition 5(d) of this IHA. The report must also provide an estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals with known exposures to seismic survey activity at received levels greater than or equal to thresholds for Level A and Level B harassment (based on visual
(b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
(i) In the event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not permitted by this IHA, such as serious injury or mortality, L-DEO shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (301-427-8401) and the New Zealand Department of Conservation (0800-362-468). The report must include the following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(B) Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
(C) Description of the incident;
(D) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(E) Water depth;
(F) Environmental conditions (
(G) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(H) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(I) Fate of the animal(s); and
(J) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with L-DEO to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. L-DEO may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that L-DEO discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(iii) In the event that L-DEO discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the specified activities (
7. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
(b) Information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices of foreign governments are important for the effectiveness of the screening and vetting protocols and procedures of the United States. Governments manage the identity and travel documents of their nationals and residents. They also control the circumstances under which they provide information about their nationals to other governments, including information about known or suspected terrorists and criminal-history information. It is, therefore, the policy of the United States to take all necessary and appropriate steps to encourage foreign governments to improve their information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices and to regularly share identity and threat information with our immigration screening and vetting systems.
(c) Section 2(a) of Executive Order 13780 directed a “worldwide review to identify whether, and if so what, additional information will be needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual is not a security or public-safety threat.” That review culminated in a report submitted to the President by the Secretary of Homeland Security on July 9, 2017. In that review, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, developed a baseline for the kinds of information required from foreign governments to support the United States Government's ability to confirm the identity of individuals seeking entry into the United States as immigrants and nonimmigrants, as well as individuals applying for any other benefit under the immigration laws, and to assess whether they are a security or public-safety threat. That baseline incorporates three categories of criteria:
(d) The Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Department of State, collected data on the performance of all foreign governments and assessed each country against the baseline described in subsection (c) of this section. The assessment focused, in particular, on identity management, security and public-safety threats, and national security risks. Through this assessment, the agencies measured each country's performance with respect to issuing reliable travel documents and implementing adequate identity-management and information-sharing protocols and procedures, and evaluated terrorism-related and public-safety risks associated with foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States from each country.
(e) The Department of Homeland Security evaluated each country against the baseline described in subsection (c) of this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security identified 16 countries as being “inadequate” based on an analysis of their identity-management protocols, information-sharing practices, and risk factors. Thirty-one additional countries were classified “at risk” of becoming “inadequate” based on those criteria.
(f) As required by section 2(d) of Executive Order 13780, the Department of State conducted a 50-day engagement period to encourage all foreign governments, not just the 47 identified as either “inadequate” or “at risk,” to improve their performance with respect to the baseline described in subsection (c) of this section. Those engagements yielded significant improvements in many countries. Twenty-nine countries, for example, provided travel document exemplars for use by Department of Homeland Security officials to combat fraud. Eleven countries agreed to share information on known or suspected terrorists.
(g) The Secretary of Homeland Security assesses that the following countries continue to have “inadequate” identity-management protocols, information-sharing practices, and risk factors, with respect to the baseline described in subsection (c) of this section, such that entry restrictions and limitations are recommended: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The Secretary of Homeland Security also assesses that Iraq did not meet the baseline, but that entry restrictions and limitations under a Presidential proclamation are not warranted. The Secretary of Homeland Security recommends, however, that nationals of Iraq who seek to enter the United States be subject to additional scrutiny to determine if they pose risks to the national security or public safety of the United States. In reaching these conclusions, the Secretary of Homeland Security considered the close cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically elected government of Iraq, the strong United States diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of United States forces in Iraq, and Iraq's commitment to combating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
(h) Section 2(e) of Executive Order 13780 directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to “submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion in a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of appropriate categories of foreign nationals of countries that have not provided the information requested until they do so or until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the country has an adequate plan to do so, or has adequately shared information through other means.” On September 15, 2017, the Secretary of Homeland Security submitted a report to me recommending entry restrictions and limitations on certain nationals of 7 countries determined to be “inadequate” in providing such information and in light of other factors discussed in the report. According to the report, the recommended restrictions would help address the threats that the countries' identity-management protocols, information-sharing inadequacies, and other risk factors pose to the security and welfare of the United
(i) Section 2(e) of Executive Order 13780 also provided that the “Secretary of State, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security may also submit to the President the names of additional countries for which
(j) Section 2 of this proclamation describes some of the inadequacies that led me to impose restrictions on the specified countries. Describing all of those reasons publicly, however, would cause serious damage to the national security of the United States, and many such descriptions are classified.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(b)
(c)
(A) denying entry would cause the foreign national undue hardship;
(B) entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States; and
(C) entry would be in the national interest.
(A) determining whether the entry of a foreign national would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States;
(B) determining whether the entry of a foreign national would be in the national interest;
(C) addressing and managing the risks of making such a determination in light of the inadequacies in information sharing, identity management, and other potential dangers posed by the nationals of individual countries subject to the restrictions and limitations imposed by this proclamation;
(D) assessing whether the United States has access, at the time of the waiver determination, to sufficient information about the foreign national to determine whether entry would satisfy the requirements of subsection (i) of this subsection; and
(E) determining the special circumstances that would justify granting a waiver under subsection (iv)(E) of this subsection.
(A) the foreign national has previously been admitted to the United States for a continuous period of work, study, or other long-term activity, is outside the United States on the applicable effective date under section 7 of this proclamation, seeks to reenter the United States to resume that activity, and the denial of reentry would impair that activity;
(B) the foreign national has previously established significant contacts with the United States but is outside the United States on the applicable effective date under section 7 of this proclamation for work, study, or other lawful activity;
(C) the foreign national seeks to enter the United States for significant business or professional obligations and the denial of entry would impair those obligations;
(D) the foreign national seeks to enter the United States to visit or reside with a close family member (
(E) the foreign national is an infant, a young child or adoptee, an individual needing urgent medical care, or someone whose entry is otherwise justified by the special circumstances of the case;
(F) the foreign national has been employed by, or on behalf of, the United States Government (or is an eligible dependent of such an employee), and the foreign national can document that he or she has provided faithful and valuable service to the United States Government;
(G) the foreign national is traveling for purposes related to an international organization designated under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), 22 U.S.C. 288
(H) the foreign national is a Canadian permanent resident who applies for a visa at a location within Canada;
(I) the foreign national is traveling as a United States Government-sponsored exchange visitor; or
(J) the foreign national is traveling to the United States, at the request of a United States Government department or agency, for legitimate law enforcement, foreign policy, or national security purposes.
(b) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and the head of any other executive department or agency (agency) that the Secretary of State deems appropriate, shall engage the countries listed in section 2 of this proclamation, and any other countries that have information-sharing, identity-management, or risk-factor deficiencies as practicable, appropriate, and consistent with the foreign policy, national security, and public-safety objectives of the United States.
(c) Notwithstanding the process described above, and consistent with the process described in section 2(f) of Executive Order 13780, if the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, determines, at any time, that a country meets the standards of the baseline described in section 1(c) of this proclamation, that a country has an adequate plan to provide such information, or that one or more of the restrictions or limitations imposed on the entry of a country's nationals are no longer necessary for the security or welfare of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security may recommend to the President the removal or modification of any or all such restrictions and limitations. The Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, or the Attorney General may also, as provided for in Executive Order 13780, submit to the President the names of additional countries for which any of them recommends any lawful restrictions or limitations deemed necessary for the security or welfare of the United States.
(b) The initial report required under subsection (a) of this section shall be submitted within 180 days of the date of this proclamation; the second report shall be submitted within 270 days of the first report; and reports shall be submitted annually thereafter.
(c) The agency heads identified in subsection (a) of this section shall coordinate any policy developments associated with the reports described in subsection (a) of this section through the appropriate Assistants to the President.
(b) In implementing this proclamation, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including those that provide an opportunity for individuals to enter the United States on the basis of a credible claim of fear of persecution or torture.
(c) No immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the applicable effective date under section 7 of this proclamation shall be revoked pursuant to this proclamation.
(d) Any individual whose visa was marked revoked or marked canceled as a result of Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States), shall be entitled to a travel document confirming that the individual is permitted to travel to the United States and seek entry under the terms and conditions of the visa marked revoked or marked canceled. Any prior cancellation or revocation of a visa that was solely pursuant to Executive Order 13769 shall not be the basis of inadmissibility for any future determination about entry or admissibility.
(e) This proclamation shall not apply to an individual who has been granted asylum by the United States, to a refugee who has already been admitted to the United States, or to an individual granted withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to limit the ability of an individual to seek asylum, refugee status, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture, consistent with the laws of the United States.
(a) The restrictions and limitations established in section 2 of this proclamation are effective at 3:30 p.m. eastern daylight time on September 24, 2017, for foreign nationals who:
(b) The restrictions and limitations established in section 2 of this proclamation are effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on October 18, 2017, for all other persons subject to this proclamation, including nationals of:
(a) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this proclamation and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby; and
(b) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the lack of certain procedural requirements, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements to conform with existing law and with any applicable court orders.
(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
| 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 |