| Page Range | 45173-45419 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 45417 - Increasing Access to High-Quality Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education | |
| 82 FR 45413 - Presidential Determination on Major Drug Transit or Major Illicit Drug Producing Countries for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 82 FR 45411 - Delegation of Authority Under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act | |
| 82 FR 45322 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science Board | |
| 82 FR 45303 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 45325 - Submission for Review: Verification of Adult Student Enrollment Status, RI 25-49 | |
| 82 FR 45256 - Inviting Applications for Technical Assistance and Training Grants | |
| 82 FR 45356 - Revised Notice of Land Use Change and Release of Grant Assurance Restrictions at the Sacramento International Airport (SMF), Sacramento, California | |
| 82 FR 45321 - Millennium Challenge Corporation Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 45318 - Notice of Entering Into a Compact With the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal | |
| 82 FR 45288 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 45202 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle Refrigerant | |
| 82 FR 45353 - Notice of Cancellation of Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement for Replacement General Aviation Airport, Mesquite, Clark County, Nevada | |
| 82 FR 45253 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle Refrigerant | |
| 82 FR 45354 - RTCA PMC Program Management Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 45353 - Eighty Sixth RTCA SC-147 Plenary Session | |
| 82 FR 45355 - Fifty Second RTCA SC-224 Plenary | |
| 82 FR 45269 - Record of Decision for the KC-46 Third Main Operating Base (MOB 3) Beddown | |
| 82 FR 45280 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; an Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior (MTSS-B) | |
| 82 FR 45261 - Approval of Subzone Expansion; Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon Fiber and Composites, Inc.; Sacramento, California | |
| 82 FR 45261 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 64-Jacksonville, Florida; Authorization of Production Activity; Hans-Mill Corporation (Household Trash Cans and Plastic Storage Totes), Jacksonville, Florida | |
| 82 FR 45260 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 144-Brunswick, Georgia; Authorization of Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; (Accessorizing Passenger Motor Vehicles); Brunswick, Georgia | |
| 82 FR 45262 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 47-Boone County, Kentucky; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Valeo North America, Inc.; (Automotive Clutch and Compressor Assemblies); Winchester, Kentucky | |
| 82 FR 45260 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 214-Lenoir County, North Carolina; Authorization of Export-Only Production Activity; Nutkao USA, Inc.; (Hazelnut Cocoa Spread); Battleboro, North Carolina | |
| 82 FR 45263 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 86-Tacoma, Washington; Authorization of Export-Only Production Activity, McFarland Cascade Holdings, Inc./Stella-Jones Corporation (Treaded Canadian Softwood Lumber, Plywood, Agriculture Posts, and Landscape Tinders); Tacoma, Washington | |
| 82 FR 45304 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Final Disposition Report (R-84), With Supplemental Questions R-84(a), R-84(b), R-84(c), R-84(d), R-84(e), R-84(f), R-84(g), R-84(h), R-84(i), and R-84(j) | |
| 82 FR 45304 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comments Requested; Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals From a Decision of a DHS Officer | |
| 82 FR 45287 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 45262 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 74-Baltimore, Maryland; Authorization of Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; (Accessorizing Passenger Motor Vehicles); Baltimore, Maryland | |
| 82 FR 45260 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 50-Long Beach, California; Authorization of Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; (Accessorizing Passenger Motor Vehicles); Long Beach, California | |
| 82 FR 45261 - Approval of Subzone Status; LT Autos, LLC, Ponce, Puerto Rico | |
| 82 FR 45263 - Approval of Subzone Expansion; Lam Research Corporation, Fremont and Livermore, California | |
| 82 FR 45263 - Approval of Subzone Status; BGM America, Inc. Marion, South Carolina | |
| 82 FR 45261 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 114-Peoria, Illinois; Authorization of Production Activity; Bell Sports, Inc., Subzone 114F (Sports Equipment), Rantoul, Illinois | |
| 82 FR 45179 - National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program | |
| 82 FR 45262 - Foreign-Trade Zone 123-Denver, Colorado; Application for Subzone; Lockheed Martin Corporation, Space Systems Company, Littleton, Colorado | |
| 82 FR 45263 - Foreign-Trade Zone 47-Boone County, Kentucky; Application for Subzone, Valeo North America, Inc., Winchester, Kentucky | |
| 82 FR 45266 - Certain Steel Nails From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2016 | |
| 82 FR 45296 - Fee for Using a Tropical Disease Priority Review Voucher in Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 82 FR 45291 - Fee for Using a Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher in Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 82 FR 45361 - Hazardous Materials: Information Collection Activities | |
| 82 FR 45356 - Hazardous Materials: Information Collection Activities | |
| 82 FR 45355 - Forty Ninth RTCA SC-206 Plenary | |
| 82 FR 45354 - Twenty Seventh RTCA SC-222 Plenary | |
| 82 FR 45302 - Notice of Realty Action: Proposed Non-Competitive Lease of Public Land in Johnson County, WY | |
| 82 FR 45207 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; Commercial Trip Limit Reduction for Vermilion Snapper | |
| 82 FR 45293 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Food Canning Establishment Registration, Process Filing, and Recordkeeping for Acidified Foods and Thermally Processed Low-Acid Foods in Hermetically Sealed Containers | |
| 82 FR 45283 - Pelzer Hydro Company, LLC, Consolidated Hydro Southeast, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests | |
| 82 FR 45284 - Pelzer Hydro Company, LLC, Consolidated Hydro Southeast, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests | |
| 82 FR 45282 - Aquenergy Systems, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests | |
| 82 FR 45282 - East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Filing | |
| 82 FR 45178 - Extension of Import Restrictions on Archaeological and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Materials From Guatemala | |
| 82 FR 45352 - Scrap Metal Services Terminal Railroad Company (Illinois), LLC-Lease and Operation Exemption-Rail Line of Scrap Metal Services, LLC | |
| 82 FR 45300 - Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 | |
| 82 FR 45281 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 2017-18 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Administrative Collection (NPSAS:18-AC) | |
| 82 FR 45267 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request-Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets | |
| 82 FR 45298 - Request for Nominations on Public Advisory Panels of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 45182 - Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions; Correction | |
| 82 FR 45173 - Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 45322 - Advisory Committee for Engineering; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 45351 - Certification Related to the Central Government of Haiti of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 45321 - Notice of Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 45314 - Steel Erection; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
| 82 FR 45317 - Powered Industrial Trucks Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
| 82 FR 45362 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Veterans Experience Access Survey Questions Scheduling Appointment: Survey Reporting | |
| 82 FR 45362 - Agency Information Collection Activity: REPS Annual Eligibility Report (Under the Provisions of Section 156, Pub. L. 97-377) | |
| 82 FR 45363 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Student Beneficiary Report-REPS (Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors) | |
| 82 FR 45360 - Hazardous Materials: Emergency Waiver No. 4 | |
| 82 FR 45290 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Child Care and Development Fund Quality Progress Report | |
| 82 FR 45301 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 45256 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 45306 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 82 FR 45316 - Hawaii State Plan for Occupational Safety and Health; Operational Status Agreement | |
| 82 FR 45285 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (OMB Nos. 3064-0085 and 3064-0120) | |
| 82 FR 45264 - Upcoming Secretary-Led International Trade Administration Multi-Sector Trade Mission to China | |
| 82 FR 45331 - Oaktree Strategic Income, LLC, et al. | |
| 82 FR 45324 - Privacy Act of 1974; New Blanket Routine Use | |
| 82 FR 45325 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Qualified Contingent Trades and Related Information Recording Obligations by Certain Participants | |
| 82 FR 45329 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Reflect Certain Changes Applicable to IQ Municipal Insured ETF, IQ Municipal Intermediate ETF, and IQ Municipal Short Duration ETF | |
| 82 FR 45342 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Listing and Trading of Shares of Breakwave Dry Bulk Shipping ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02 | |
| 82 FR 45339 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe CDS Risk Policy | |
| 82 FR 45351 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico | |
| 82 FR 45350 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the U.S. Virgin Islands | |
| 82 FR 45272 - Arms Sales Notification | |
| 82 FR 45349 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Texas | |
| 82 FR 45350 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the U.S. Virgin Islands | |
| 82 FR 45299 - Agency Information Collection Request. 60-Day Public Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 45349 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico | |
| 82 FR 45305 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comments Requested; Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals From a Decision of a DHS Officer | |
| 82 FR 45351 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico | |
| 82 FR 45301 - Notice of Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 45268 - Guidance Document on Hazardous Additive, Non-Polymeric Organohalogen Flame Retardants in Certain Consumer Products | |
| 82 FR 45270 - Arms Sales Notification | |
| 82 FR 45350 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the U.S. Virgin Islands | |
| 82 FR 45322 - Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 | |
| 82 FR 45187 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Trading Programs | |
| 82 FR 45241 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Trading Programs | |
| 82 FR 45191 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Enhanced Monitoring; California | |
| 82 FR 45242 - Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Nonattainment Plan for the Central New Hampshire SO2 | |
| 82 FR 45277 - Arms Sales Notification | |
| 82 FR 45218 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 45175 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 45351 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor Status (J-NONIMMIGRANT) | |
| 82 FR 45233 - Public Approval of Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bonds | |
| 82 FR 45228 - Technical Standards | |
| 82 FR 45220 - Program for Eliminating Duplication of Environmental Reviews | |
| 82 FR 45205 - Head Start Program | |
| 82 FR 45366 - Changes to the In-Bond Process | |
| 82 FR 45212 - Rules of Practice for Protests and Appeals Regarding Eligibility for Inclusion in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Verification and Evaluation Database | |
| 82 FR 45193 - Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production Risk and Technology Review Reconsideration | |
| 82 FR 45208 - Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and Washington; Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order on Proposed Amendments to Marketing Order No. 982 | |
| 82 FR 45180 - Availability of Records |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) TFE731-20 and TFE731-40 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by two fan disks found with a manufacturing-caused flaw. This AD requires removing affected fan disks and replacing fan disks with a part eligible for installation. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 2, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 2, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Honeywell TFE731-20 and TFE731-40 turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received.
We received a comment regarding Honeywell as a company that was not relevant to this AD. No further discussion is required.
Based on further review, we made the following changes to this AD.
We corrected the cost per product estimate under “On-condition costs” in the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM from $300,510 to $50,085 in this AD. The cost per product in the NPRM incorrectly estimated the cost for six engines rather than for one engine. On further review, we also redefined the work hours needed to install the new or reworked fan disk. The 8 work hours to inspect the fan disk were listed as a separate item in the NPRM but, in this final rule, we added these work hours to the estimated cost of installing the reworked or new fan disk. The overall estimated cost of this work per engine remains the same.
We corrected the product identification from “Honeywell International Inc. (Type Certificate previously held by AlliedSignal Inc., Garrett Engine Division; Garrett Turbine Engine Company; and AiResearch Manufacturing Company of Arizona)” to “Honeywell International Inc. (Type Certificate previously held by AlliedSignal Inc.).”
We removed paragraph (g)(4) of the NPRM which required inspection of the removed fan disks in accordance with paragraph 3.D.(2) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016. Although fan disks may be returned to Honeywell for inspection and rework to become eligible for installation, that is not a requirement of this AD.
We revised the definition of “parts eligible for installation” in paragraph (g) of this AD to read: “For the purposes of this AD, parts eligible for installation are: (i) Fan disks not listed in the Accomplishment Instructions, Table 9, in Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016; or (ii) fan disks listed in Table 9 that have been inspected, reworked, and marked with “T43374” adjacent to the P/N or S/N. Guidance on returning affected parts to Honeywell for inspection and rework is found in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.D., of Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256.” This definition clarifies that fan disks with a P/N not affected by this AD, as well as parts that have been reworked and remarked, are eligible for installation.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016. The SB identifies affected fan disks by serial number and describes procedures for removing, inspecting, and replacing the fan disks. This service information is available by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 61 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary disk replacements that would be required based on the results of the required inspection. We estimate that 6 engines will need this replacement:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
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 engines, propellers, and appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 2, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) TFE731-20 and TFE731-40 turbofan engines, with a fan disk, part number (P/N) 3060287-2, and a
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by a report of two fan disks found with surface rollovers in the dovetail slot area. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained failure of the fan disks, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Remove the fan disk using the following criteria:
(1) Remove fan disks with 9,000 cycles-since-new (CSN) or more on the effective date of this AD, within 100 cycles-in-service (CIS), or at the next engine shop visit, or at next access, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Remove fan disks with between 8,000 and 8,999 CSN, inclusive, on the effective date of this AD, within 9,100 CSN or within 1,000 CIS, or at the next engine shop visit, or at next access, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
(3) Remove fan disks with fewer than 8,000 CSN, on the effective date of this AD, before exceeding 9,000 CSN, or at the next engine shop visit, or at next access, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
(4) Replace all removed fan disks with a part eligible for installation.
(1) For the purposes of this AD, an engine shop visit is defined as the removal of the tie-shaft nut from the engine.
(2) For the purposes of this AD, access is defined as the removal of the fan rotor assembly from the engine.
(3) For the purposes of this AD, parts eligible for installation are:
(i) fan disks not listed in the Accomplishment Instructions, Table 9, in Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016; or
(ii) fan disks listed in Table 9, in Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016, that have been inspected, reworked, and marked with “T43374” adjacent to the P/N or S/N. Guidance on returning affected parts to Honeywell for inspection and rework is found in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.D., of Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the Los Angeles ACO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Honeywell Service Bulletin TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Honeywell service information identified in this AD, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information 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; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 553-61, Trent 553A2-61, Trent 556-61, Trent 556A2-61, Trent 556B-61, Trent 556B2-61, Trent 560-61, and Trent 560A2-61 turbofan engines. This AD requires replacement of the low-pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins. This AD was prompted by LPC case A-frame hollow locating pins that may have reduced integrity due to incorrect heat treatment. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective October 13, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publications listed in this AD as of October 13, 2017.
We must receive comments on this AD by November 13, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
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
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2017-0012, dated January 25, 2017 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
All low pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins, Part Number (P/N) FK32009, manufactured since 2012 have potentially been subjected to incorrect heat treatment. This may have reduced the integrity of the pin such that in a Fan Blade Off (FBO) event it is unable to withstand the applied loads. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of location of the A-frame following an FBO event, possibly resulting in engine separation, loss of thrust reverser unit, release of high-energy debris, or an uncontrolled fire. To address this potential unsafe condition, RR identified the affected engines that have these A-frame hollow locating pins installed and published Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ451, providing instructions for replacement of these pins. For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time replacement of the A-frame hollow locating pins P/N FK32009 on the affected engines.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
RR has issued Alert Non Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No. RB.211-72-AJ451, Revision 1, dated March 10, 2017. The SB describes procedures for replacement of all non-conforming A-frame locating pins. 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 the United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires replacement of all non-conforming A-frame locating pins.
No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
We estimate that this AD affects no engines installed on 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
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 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 13, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 553-61, Trent 553A2-61, Trent 556-61, Trent 556A2-61, Trent 556B-61, Trent 556B2-61, Trent 560-61, and Trent 560A2-61 turbofan engines with an engine serial number (ESN) listed in Section 1.A., Effectivity, of RR Alert Non Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AJ451, Revision 1, dated March 10, 2017.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by low-pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins that may have reduced integrity due to incorrect heat treatment. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the locating pins, engine separation, and loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the next scheduled maintenance inspection after the effective date of this AD, but no later than January 1, 2018, replace each affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin with a part eligible for installation using Section 3, Accomplishment Instructions, of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ451, Revision 1, dated March 10, 2017.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install any engine with an affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin.
For the purposes of this AD:
(1) An affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin is part number (P/N) FK32009, except those with an original RR authorized release certificate dated July 5, 2016, or later.
(2) A part eligible for installation is an LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin with an original RR authorized release certificate dated July 5, 2016, or later.
(1) The Manager, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2017-0012, dated January 25, 2017, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-72-AJ451, Revision 1, dated March 10, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For RR service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information 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:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This final rule amends U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect the extension of import restrictions on certain archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological materials from Guatemala. These restrictions, which were last extended and revised by CBP Dec. 12-17, are due to expire on September 29, 2017, unless extended. The Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State (Department of State), has determined that conditions continue to warrant the imposition of import restrictions. Accordingly, the restrictions will remain in effect for an additional five years, and the CBP regulations are being amended to indicate this additional extension. These restrictions are being extended pursuant to determinations of the Department of State under the terms of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, which implements the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. CBP Dec. 12-17 contains the Designated List of archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological materials that describes the articles to which the restrictions apply.
Effective September 29, 2017.
For legal aspects, Lisa L. Burley, Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, (202) 325-0215,
Pursuant to the provisions of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (hereafter, the Cultural Property Implementation Act or the Act) (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601
In certain limited circumstances, the Cultural Property Implementation Act authorizes the imposition of restrictions on an emergency basis (19 U.S.C. 2603). Under the Act and applicable CBP regulations (19 CFR 12.104g(b)), emergency restrictions are effective for no more than five years from the date of the State Party's request and may be extended for three years where it is determined that the emergency condition continues to apply with respect to the covered materials (19 U.S.C. 2603(c)(3)); such restrictions may also be continued pursuant to an agreement concluded within the meaning of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2603(c)(4)).
On April 15, 1991, under the authority of the Cultural Property Implementation Act, the former U.S. Customs Service published Treasury Decision (T.D.) 91-34 in the
On September 29, 1997, the United States entered into a bilateral agreement with Guatemala concerning the imposition of import restrictions on archaeological materials from the Pre-Columbian cultures of Guatemala (the 1997 Agreement). The 1997 Agreement included among the materials covered by the restrictions the archaeological materials then subject to the emergency restrictions imposed by T.D. 91-34. On October 3, 1997, the former United States Customs Service published T.D. 97-81 in the
The restrictions were subsequently extended, in 2002 by T.D. 02-56 (67 FR 61259); and in 2007 by Customs and Border Protection Decision (CBP Dec.) 07-79 (72 FR 54538), to September 29, 2012.
In 2012, the Agreement was amended to include certain ecclesiastical ethnological materials of the Conquest and Colonial Periods of Guatemala, c. A.D. 1524 to 1821. On September 28, 2012, CBP published CBP Dec. 12-17 in the
On July 28, 2017, after reviewing the findings and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State, concluding that the cultural heritage of Guatemala continues to be in jeopardy from pillage of certain archaeological materials and certain ecclesiastical ethnological materials, made the necessary statutory determinations, and decided to extend the agreement with Guatemala for an additional five-year period to September 29, 2022. Diplomatic notes have been
The Designated List of Archaeological Materials and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Materials from Guatemala covered by these import restrictions is set forth in CBP Dec. 12-17. The Designated List may also be found online at
The restrictions on the importation of these archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological materials from Guatemala are to continue in effect for an additional five years. Importation of such material continues to be restricted unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.
This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). In addition, CBP has determined that such notice or public procedure would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the action being taken is essential to avoid interruption of the application of the existing import restrictions (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States, it is not subject to either Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13771.
This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1).
Cultural property, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Prohibited merchandise.
For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12) is amended as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624;
Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612;
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final regulation; announcement of effective date.
This document announces the effective date for specific portions of the National Performance Management measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Final Rule (PM#3).
The effective date of the amendments to 23 CFR 490.105(c)(5) and (d)(1)(v), 490.107(b)(1)(ii)(H), (b)(2)(ii)(J), (b)(3)(ii)(I), and (c)(4), 490.109(d)(1)(v) and (f)(1)(v), 490.503(a)(2), 490.505 (Definition of Greenhouse gas (GHG)), 490.507(b), 490.509(f), (g) and (h), 490.511(a)(2), (c), (d), and (f), and 490.513(d) published on January 18, 2017, at 82 FR 5970, is September 28, 2017.
Christopher Richardson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Legislation, Regulations, and General Law, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0761. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, the Final Rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
On May 19, 2017, at 82 FR 22879, FHWA announced that the majority of the PM#3 Final Rule would become effective on May 20, 2017, and that the portions of the PM#3 Final Rule pertaining to the measure on the percent change in CO
This document confirms that the following sections of the Final Rule are effective as of September 28, 2017:
The FHWA recognizes that there are short timeframes to comply with the October 1, 2018 reporting deadline. However, FHWA expects that the burden to comply with the upcoming reporting deadline will be minimal, consisting mostly of preliminary target-setting activities using existing data sources.
The FHWA has initiated additional rulemaking procedures proposing to repeal the GHG measure (RIN 2125-AF76) and anticipates publishing an NPRM in 2017 with a goal of issuing a Final Rule in Spring 2018.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), FHWA generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations and publishes rules not less than 30 days before their effective dates. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking or delay effective dates when the agency, for good cause, finds that the requirement is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3)). There is good cause to waive these requirements here as unnecessary, because this rule merely ceases the suspension of the Final Rule pending additional rulemaking, as provided for in the May 19, 2017 document at 82 FR 22879, thus putting in effect the requirements of the above-referenced sections of the Final Rule as previously promulgated after notice and comment. The cessation of the suspension is therefore not significant in nature and impact, and does not impose new burdens on State departments of transportation and Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Bridges, Highway safety, Highways and roads, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Final rule.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) is issuing a final rule revising its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations in order to implement the substantive and procedural changes to the FOIA identified in the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and update two district office addresses and the Office of Legal Counsel's fax number.
Effective September 28, 2017.
Stephanie D. Garner, Assistant Legal Counsel, FOIA Programs, or Draga G. Anthony, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, at (202) 663-4640 (voice) or (202) 663-7026 (TTY). These are not toll-free telephone numbers. This final rule also is available in the following formats: Large print, Braille, audiotape, and electronic file on computer disk. Requests for this final rule in an alternative format should be made to EEOC's Publications Center at 1-800-669-3362 (voice) or 1-800-800-3302 (TTY).
On December 29, 2016, EEOC published in the
EEOC received four comments in response to the interim final rule. Two comments were submitted by an individual, and the remaining two comments were submitted by the National Archives and Records Administration's Office of Government Information Services (hereinafter “OGIS”).
The individual commenter suggested that EEOC reconsider the fifteen cent per page duplication fee charged for copies. This comment is outside the scope of the interim final rule, which did not propose changes to the duplication fees associated with processing FOIA requests. Therefore, the EEOC declines to change the duplication fees. The second comment asked the EEOC to remove the word “professional” in 1610.9(f)(3), which identifies the requirements of a requester seeking expedited processing. Congress strongly favors uniform FOIA regulations. The Office of Information Policy, to assist agencies in issuing uniform regulations, provided a template for agencies to utilize when revising FOIA regulations. In order to conform with the Office of Information Policy template language, the EEOC declines to remove the word “professional.”
The Commission has considered carefully the comments from OGIS and has made some changes to the final rule in response to them. The OGIS comments concerning Sections 1610.11 and 1610.13 and EEOC's changes to the final rule are discussed in more detail below.
The EEOC determined that the final two sentences of Section 1610.2(a) of the Draft Final Rule should be deleted. Those sentences read as follows: “As a matter of policy, the Commission may make discretionary disclosures of records or information exempt from disclosure under the FOIA whenever disclosure would not foreseeably harm an interest protected by the FOIA exemption. This policy does not create any right enforceable in Court.” The final rule now more closely aligns with the statutory language at 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(8). The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 codified the foreseeable harm standard; therefore, release of the records is no longer a matter of agency policy. Records must be released unless there is a risk of foreseeable harm.
Section 1610.5(a)(2), of the interim final rule said that “(2)A requester who is making a request for records about himself or herself must comply with the
OGIS requested that the EEOC substitute the words “dispute resolution” for the word “mediation” in paragraph (c) Decision on appeals and paragraph (d) Engaging in dispute resolution services provided by OGIS. We have done so. This change conforms to OGIS's updated FOIA rules published on December 29, 2016.
OGIS advised the EEOC that General Records Schedule 4.2 replaced General Records Schedule 14. Therefore, the EEOC has changed the General Records Schedule reference to 4.2.
This final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 2003), section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and Executive Order 13563, 76 FR 3821 (January 1, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. The rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule contains no new information collection requirements subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Commission certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the changes to the rule do not impose any burdens upon FOIA requesters, including those that might be small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Freedom of Information.
For the Commission.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the interim rule amending 29 CFR part 1610 which was published at 81 FR 95869 on December 29, 2016, is adopted as final with the following changes:
42 U.S.C. 2000e-12(a), 5 U.S.C. 552 as amended by Pub. L. 93-502, Pub. L. 99-570 and Pub. L. 105-231; for § 1610.15, non-search or copy portions are issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701.
(a) This subpart contains the rules that the Commission will follow in processing requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 552. These rules should be read in conjunction with the text of the FOIA and the Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB Guidelines”). Requests made by individuals for records about themselves under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, are processed in accordance with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations as well as under this subpart. The Commission should administer the FOIA with a presumption of openness.
(b) As referenced in this subpart, “component” means each separate office within the Commission that is responsible for processing FOIA requests. The rules described in this regulation that apply to the Commission also apply to its components.
(a)
(2) Where a request for records pertains to another individual, a requester may receive greater access by submitting either a notarized authorization signed by that individual or a declaration made in compliance with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1746 by that individual authorizing disclosure of the records to the requester, or by submitting proof that the individual is deceased (for example, a copy of a death certificate or an obituary). As an exercise of administrative discretion, the Commission can require a requester to supply additional information if necessary in order to verify that a particular individual has consented to disclosure.
(b)
(1) A written request for inspection or copying of a record of the Commission may be presented in person, by mail, by fax, by email at
(2) A request must be clearly and prominently identified as a request for information under the “Freedom of Information Act.” If submitted by mail, or otherwise submitted under any cover, the envelope or other cover must be similarly identified.
(3) A respondent must always provide a copy of the “Filed” stamped court complaint when requesting a copy of a charge file. The charging party must provide a copy of the “Filed” stamped court complaint when requesting a copy of the charge file if the Notice of Right to Sue has expired as of the date of the charging party's request.
(4) Each request must contain information which reasonably describes the records sought and, when known, should contain date, title or name, author, recipient, subject matter of the record, case number, file designation, or reference number and location for the records requested in order to permit the records to be promptly located.
(c)
(d)
(c)
(d)
The Commission must preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this subpart, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to Title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 4.2 of the National Archives and Records Administration. The Commission must not dispose of or destroy records while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
Correcting amendments.
FinCEN is making technical corrections to a final rule published in the
FinCEN Resource Center at 1-800-767-2825. E-mail inquiries can be sent to
On May 11, 2016, FinCEN published a final rule (81 FR 29398) entitled “Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions.” The final rule amends the Bank Secrecy Act regulations to include a new requirement for covered financial institutions to identify and verify the identity of beneficial owners of legal entity customers, subject to certain exclusions and exemptions. The final rule also amends the anti-money laundering (AML) program requirements for all covered institutions. This document makes technical corrections to the Certification Form located in appendix A to 31 CFR 1010.230 and adds a paragraph to 31 CFR 1024.210(b) that was inadvertently omitted in the final rule published in the
This document makes technical corrections to Appendix A (Certification Form) to 31 CFR 1010.230. Appendix A inadvertently omitted the words “, Type,” after “Name” in the heading of Section II.b.
This document also makes a technical correction in 31 CFR 1024.210 by reinserting the training element of the AML program requirements for mutual funds, which was inadvertently omitted from the final rule. Consistent with 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(1)(C) and the AML program requirements for mutual funds adopted in 2002,
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency may, for good cause, find (and incorporate the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public comment procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This correcting document reinserts language inadvertently omitted from the “Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions” final rule, specifically the training element in the AML program rule for mutual funds, and deletes a term and adds language that was inadvertently omitted from the Certification Form which accompanied the final rule. The agency has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment is unnecessary.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the APA, the required publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except, among other things, as provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. FinCEN finds that there is good cause for shortened notice since the revisions made by this final rule are minor, non-substantive, and technical. This final rule takes effect September 28, 2017 with an applicability date of May 11, 2018.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.
FinCEN has determined that Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 do not apply in this final rulemaking.
There are no collection of information requirements in this final rule.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532 (Unfunded Mandates Act), requires that an agency must prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating any rule likely to result in a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. FinCEN has determined that no portion of this final rule will result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Brokers, Counter money laundering, Counter-terrorism, Currency, Foreign banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirement, Securities, Terrorism.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter X of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 and 5316-5332; title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307; sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 and 5316-5332; title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307; sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
The addition reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(4) Provide ongoing training for appropriate persons; and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The submitted revision requests EPA remove from the Virginia SIP regulations from the Virginia Administrative Code that established EPA-administered trading programs under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), one of which also included requirements to address nitrogen oxide (NO
This rule is effective on November 27, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by October 30, 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-2017-0215 at
Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by email at
On January 5, 2017, the Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), submitted a SIP revision (Revision D16) that requests removal from its SIP of Virginia Administrative Code regulations including 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part II—NO
EPA promulgated CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) to address transported emissions that significantly contributed to downwind states' nonattainment and maintenance of the 1997 ozone and fine particulate matter (PM
After EPA promulgated CAIR, litigation ensued. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008,
On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR to address the interstate transport of emissions contributing to nonattainment and interfering with maintenance of the two air quality standards covered by CAIR as well as the 2006 PM
Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed CSAPR prior to its implementation and ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR on an interim basis.
Throughout the initial round of D.C. Circuit proceedings and the ensuing Supreme Court proceedings, the stay on CSAPR remained in place, and EPA continued to implement CAIR. Following the April 2014 Supreme Court decision, EPA filed a motion asking the D.C. Circuit to lift the stay in order to allow CSAPR to replace CAIR in an equitable and orderly manner while further D.C. Circuit proceedings were held to resolve remaining claims from petitioners. Additionally, EPA's motion requested to toll, by three years, all CSAPR compliance deadlines that had not passed as of the approval date of the stay. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's request,
Starting in January 2015, the CSAPR FIP trading programs for annual NO
On October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74504), EPA finalized the CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and issued FIPs that updated the ozone season NO
VADEQ submitted a SIP revision on January 5, 2017 requesting the removal of regulations from the Virginia SIP under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part II—NO
As noted previously, on January 1, 2015, the CAIR annual NO
These obsolete regulations include provisions under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part III—NO
Since the regulations implementing the CAIR annual NO
EPA is approving the January 5, 2017 SIP revision submission from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which sought removal from the Virginia SIP of moot regulations under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140 that implemented the CAIR annual NO
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code § 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their federal counterparts . . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 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 today's
This action removing from the Virginia SIP regulations under Sections 5-140-1010 through 5-140-3880 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140 that implemented the CAIR annual NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California on November 10, 1993. This SIP revision concerns the establishment of a Photochemical Assessment Monitoring System (PAMS) network in six ozone nonattainment areas within California. The EPA is taking this action under the Clean Air Act based on the conclusion that all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements related to PAMS SIP revisions have been met.
This rule is effective October 30, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0411. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3959,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On August 2, 2017 (82 FR 35922), we proposed to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of California on November 10, 1993. Herein, we refer to our proposed action on August 2, 2017, as the “proposed rule.”
In our proposed rule, we provided a discussion of the regulatory context leading to the SIP revision submitted by California on November 10, 1993. In short, the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), as amended in 1990, required the EPA to designate as nonattainment, and to classify as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe or Extreme, any ozone areas that were still designated nonattainment under the 1977 Act Amendments, and any other areas violating the 1-hour ozone standard, generally based on air quality monitoring data from the 1987 through 1989 period.
CAA section 182(c)(1) of the CAA required the EPA to promulgate rules for enhanced monitoring of ozone, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds to obtain more comprehensive and representative data on ozone air pollution in areas designated nonattainment and classified as Serious, Severe or Extreme. The EPA's final PAMS regulation was promulgated on February 12, 1993 (58 FR 8452). Section 182(c)(1) also required states to submit SIP revisions providing for enhanced monitoring for such areas consistent with the PAMS regulation.
On November 10, 1993, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted to the EPA a SIP revision for PAMS networks in California (“California PAMS SIP revision”). The California PAMS SIP revision consists of PAMS commitments from five California air districts with jurisdiction within the six relevant ozone nonattainment areas: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) (for South Coast and Southeast Desert areas); Sacramento Metro AQMD (for the Sacramento Metro area); San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) (for the San Diego County area); San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD (for the San Joaquin Valley area), and Ventura County APCD (for the Ventura County area), as well as CARB Executive Orders approving the commitments, and public process documentation. The California PAMS SIP revision is intended to meet the requirements of section 182(c)(1) of the Act and to comply with the PAMS regulation, codified at 40 CFR part 58, as promulgated on February 12, 1993.
In our proposed rule, we identified the criteria we used to review the California PAMS SIP revision submittal and provided our evaluation and rationale for proposed approval. We determined that California's PAMS SIP revision meets all applicable requirements: (1) By first committing to, and then by implementing, PAMS networks as required in 40 CFR part 58; and (2) by providing the public with an opportunity to inspect the proposed
Please see our proposed rule for additional background information and a more detailed evaluation of the SIP revision and explanation of our basis for approval.
The EPA's proposed action on August 2, 2017, provided a 30-day public comment period ending on September 1, 2017. We received no comments on our proposed action.
Under CAA section 110(k)(3) and for the reasons set forth in our proposed rule and summarized above, the EPA is taking final action to approve the California PAMS SIP revision submitted on November 10, 1993, for the following six ozone nonattainment areas in California: South Coast, Sacramento Metro, San Diego County, San Joaquin Valley, Southeast Desert, and Ventura County. We are taking this final action based on our conclusion that the California PAMS SIP revision meets all applicable requirements for enhanced ambient pollutant concentration monitoring under CAA section 182(c)(1) and our PAMS regulation.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves a state plan as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the action does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 27, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(495) The following plan was submitted on November 10, 1993 by the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional material.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; notification of final action on reconsideration.
This action finalizes amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories. These final amendments are in response to two petitions for reconsideration filed by industry stakeholders on the rule revisions to the NESHAP for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories that were promulgated on August 19, 2015. We are revising the compliance date by which affected sources must include emissions from oxidation reactors when determining compliance with the total fluoride emission limits for superphosphoric acid (SPA) process lines. In addition, we are revising the compliance date for the monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers. We are also clarifying one option and adding a new option, to the monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers.
This final rule is effective on September 28, 2017.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Ms. Susan Fairchild, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5167; email address:
Categories and entities potentially affected by this reconsideration action include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this final action. To determine whether your facility would be affected by this final action, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this final action, please contact the person listed in the preceding
The docket number for this final action regarding the NESHAP for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this document will also be available on the Internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by November 27, 2017. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
On June 10, 1999 (64 FR 31358), the EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source category and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production source category. On August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50386), the EPA published amended rules for both source categories that took into consideration the technology review and residual risk review required by sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f) of the CAA, respectively. Following promulgation of the August 2015 rule revisions, the EPA received two petitions for reconsideration from The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) and the Phosphate Corporation of Saskatchewan, including: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.; White Springs Agricultural Chemical, Inc., DBA PCS Phosphate-White Springs; and PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P., (collectively “PCS”), requesting administrative reconsideration of amended 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and subpart BB under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).
In response to the petitions, the EPA reconsidered and requested comment on three distinct issues:
• Compliance deadline for air oxidation reactors used in SPA lines;
• Compliance deadlines for low-energy absorber monitoring provisions; and
• Monitoring options for low-energy absorbers.
The EPA proposed a notice of reconsideration including proposed rule amendments in the
In this document, the EPA is taking final action with respect to the reconsideration and proposed amendments. Section III of this preamble summarizes the public comments received on the proposed notice of reconsideration, presents the EPA's responses to the comments, and explains our rationale for the rule revisions published here.
We are also restoring a provision of the 1999 maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rules that was inadvertently omitted from the risk and technology review (RTR) amendments to those rules. That provision, related to compliance monitoring, allowed sources a ±20-percent variability in the minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber.
The three reconsideration issues for which amendments are being finalized in this rulemaking are: (1) Compliance deadlines for air oxidation reactors used in SPA lines; (2) compliance deadlines for revised low-energy absorber monitoring provisions; and (3) monitoring options for low-energy absorbers. A fourth issue, which was identified after the close of the public comment period, is also being addressed in this action. This is the restoration of the ±20-percent variability allowance for the minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber. Each of these issues is discussed in detail in the following sections of this preamble.
In the August 19, 2015, amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA, the EPA revised the SPA process line definition to include oxidation reactors. The EPA received petitions requesting the compliance schedule be changed to allow more time for affected sources to include emissions from oxidation reactors when determining compliance with the total fluoride (TF) emission limits for SPA process lines. In response to the petitions, on December 9, 2016, we proposed to revise the compliance date from August 19, 2016, to August 19, 2018. We did not receive adverse comments on this change. Instead, both commenters stated that they supported this change. Therefore, in this action, the EPA is finalizing the compliance date revision as proposed. The compliance date by which affected sources must include emissions from oxidation reactors when determining compliance with the TF emission limits for SPA process lines is August 19, 2018.
In the August 19, 2015, amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB, the EPA changed the compliance monitoring requirement for low-energy absorbers (
Both commenters said that the proposed compliance date (
Based on these comments, we agree that more time beyond what we proposed is needed to achieve compliance with the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers. To allow time to evaluate all monitoring options, obtain and certify instruments, establish operating limits, and, in certain cases, develop a regression model or AMP, the EPA is finalizing a compliance date that is no later than August 19, 2018.
Furthermore, one commenter requested that the EPA add more compliance options for low-energy absorbers in advance of the compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements. The commenter asserted that footnote b for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote b for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 are too narrowly drafted because they do not allow facilities to use liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring or their current monitoring strategies, such as monitoring in accordance with an already approved AMP or an applicable monitoring provision of a permit issued under 40 CFR part 70, in advance of the compliance date. This commenter suggested edits to footnote b for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote b for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0097) to allow compliance with any one of the following: (i) The monitoring requirements in Table 3 for absorbers designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 inches of water column or less; (ii) the applicable monitoring provisions of a permit issued under 40 CFR part 70 or an Alternative Monitoring Plan approved pursuant to 40 CFR 63.8(f); or (iii) the installation of continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) for pressure at the gas stream inlet or outlet of the absorber, and monitoring pressure drop through the absorber. We agree with the commenter that facilities should be allowed to use liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring or their current approved monitoring strategy (in lieu of monitoring pressure drop through the absorber), in advance of the compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers. Therefore, for the most part, we included the commenter's edits to footnote b for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote b for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 in the final rules. However, we added language to the commenter's edits to ensure that if an owner or operator were to use a part 70 monitoring provision, it would be a federally enforceable provision. We also split the option to use a part 70 monitoring provision and the option to use an AMP such that it is one or the other. The final rule allows an owner or operator to use liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring or their current approved monitoring strategy (in lieu of monitoring pressure drop through the absorber), in advance of the compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers.
Finally, one commenter requested that the EPA include language in the final rules to authorize compliance with an AMP that is still under review by an EPA Regional office beyond the compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements, provided the AMP request was submitted to the Region more than 30 days in advance of the compliance deadline. The commenter maintained that without this type of category-specific provision, owners or operators are not entitled (based on the existing provision at 40 CFR 63.8(f)(1)) to rely on AMPs in advance of the EPA's approval. The commenter stated that although 40 CFR 63.8(f)(5)(i) calls for the Agency to respond to AMP requests within 30 days of receipt, the EPA sometimes needs more than 30 days to grant or deny such requests. The commenter asserted they are unable to predict or control the response time of the EPA; therefore, they should not be required to carry the risk and uncertainty of relying on an AMP that is still under EPA review after the compliance deadline. The commenter also stated that facility-specific extensions may not be available under CAA section 112(i)(3)(B), which authorizes a 1-year extension if “necessary for the installation of controls.” The commenter contended that liquid-to-gas monitoring may require new equipment for some low-energy absorbers, but the new equipment will likely be for absorber
We disagree with the commenter's request to authorize compliance with AMPs that are still under the EPA review beyond the compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements. As stated previously, we are revising and finalizing the compliance date for the liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers to no later than August 19, 2018, which is 3 years from promulgation of the final rule, and is the maximum allowed under the CAA for phosphoric acid and phosphate fertilizer manufacturers to comply with the rule. We believe this is an ample amount of time for any outstanding AMPs to be approved. Furthermore, the existing provision at 40 CFR 63.8(f)(1) has been in place for more than 20 years. During this time, the process for review and resolution of AMP requests has functioned satisfactorily within the established timelines. The concern raised by the commenter involves one unique case currently under consideration. We concluded that adopting a blanket exemption from the procedures of 40 CFR 63.8(f) for all owners or operators of the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories is inappropriate. This one unique case is more appropriately handled by the EPA Regional office continuing to review the technical merits of the AMP application and applying enforcement discretion to ensure equitable treatment of the company.
In response to the petitions the EPA received regarding monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers, we proposed to clarify an existing monitoring option (
With exception of the items discussed in the following paragraphs, commenters stated that they supported these changes. Therefore, unless discussed below, we are finalizing the changes regarding monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers as proposed.
In response to petitioner requests for clarification of the regulatory language describing the blower design capacity option for determining the gas flow rate through the absorber (for use in monitoring the liquid-to-gas ratio), we clarified in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking how this option can be used. Additionally, we proposed changing the term “design blower capacity” in Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to “blower design capacity” and made other minor text edits to these tables in order to use the phrase “gas flow rate through the absorber” more consistently. We also proposed footnote c for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote c for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to add certain site-specific monitoring plan requirements, clarify that the blower design capacity option is intended to establish the maximum possible gas flow through the absorber, and explain that the blower design capacity option can be used regardless of whether the blower is located on the influent or effluent side of the absorber. Finally, we proposed a requirement at 40 CFR 63.608(e) and 40 CFR 63.628(e) to document, in the site-specific monitoring plan, the calculations that were used to make adjustments for pressure drop if blower design capacity is used to establish the maximum possible gas flow rate through an absorber. In this action, the EPA is finalizing, with one exception, all the proposed language regarding the blower design capacity option.
The one change to the proposed language for the blower design capacity option is our addition of language in footnote c to Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to clarify that owners and operators must establish the minimum liquid-to-gas ratio operating limit by dividing the minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber determined during a performance test by the maximum possible gas flow rate through the absorber determined using blower design capacity. One commenter requested the EPA include the following additional language to footnote c to Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63: “The maximum design gas flow through the scrubber, or Fmax, shall be determined using the blower design capacity and system pressure drop. During performance testing, the observed liquid-to-gas ratio, L/G, will be determined. The minimum liquid flow will be established by multiplying the compliance L/G by Fmax.” We disagree that the language should be added to footnote c as drafted by the commenter because it introduces a new undefined and unnecessary term “Fmax.”
We also disagree because much of the commenter's language is already included elsewhere in the rules,
In response to the petitions the EPA received requesting other options to be considered for determining the gas flow rate through the absorber, which is used in monitoring the liquid-to-gas ratio, we proposed to include an option in Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and in Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63, that allows facilities to develop and use a regression model to determine gas flow rate through an absorber in lieu of direct measurement or using blower design capacity. We also proposed a requirement in footnote a for Table 4 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote a for Table 4 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 requiring continuous monitoring of blower amperage, blower static pressure,
Both commenters stated that they support the use of a regression model to determine gas flow rate through an absorber, but requested one clarification to the proposed language. The commenters requested that the EPA revise footnote d for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote d for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to clarify whether an emissions performance test is necessary when developing and verifying gas flow regression models. The commenters contended that the EPA should allow facilities to develop and verify gas flow regression models separately from the required annual emissions performance test. One commenter maintained that requiring facilities to conduct a performance test to develop a regression model would waste resources and needlessly complicate the schedule for liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring. The commenter contended that facilities would have to conduct more than one performance test in a year's time to first develop a regression model and then set operating limits for liquid-to-gas ratio. The commenters suggested edits to footnote d for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote d for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 (see docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0097 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0522-0098) to make clear that an emissions performance test is not required to develop and verify gas flow regression models. We agree with the commenters' edits to footnote d as it was our intent to allow facilities the flexibility to develop and verify gas flow regression models (using direct measurements of gas flow rate, for example, via EPA Method 2) either separately from, or in conjunction with, the annual performance test. Therefore, in this action, the EPA is finalizing, with one change, all the proposed language regarding the regression model option. The one change we are making to the proposed language is that we are revising and clarifying footnote d for Table 3 to subpart AA of 40 CFR part 63 and footnote d for Table 3 to subpart BB of 40 CFR part 63 to convey that direct measurements of gas flow rate used to develop or verify regression models may be collected during, or separately from, the annual performance testing that is required in 40 CFR 63.606(b) for subpart AA or 40 CFR 63.626(b) for subpart BB.
The June 10, 1999, MACT rules (64 FR 31358) included provisions to account for the variability in absorber (
The August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50386), RTR final rule included the allowance for the ±20-percent variability in the absorber pressure drop, but did not include the allowance for the ±20-percent variability in the minimum liquid flow rate to the absorber.
Industry brought this omission to our attention after the comment period for this reconsideration rule. We subsequently reviewed the record for the August 2015 RTR final rule and could not find any record of a decision to remove the ±20-percent minimum liquid flow rate variability provision. Therefore, we have concluded that this omission was an inadvertent error in the August 2015 RTR final rule, and we are restoring that provision in these final rules. Subpart AA includes this restored provision at 40 CFR 63.605(d)(1)(ii)(A) and subpart BB includes this restored provision at 40 CFR 63.625(d)(1)(ii)(A).
This action revises compliance dates specific to oxidation reactors in the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source category, and absorber monitoring in both the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories. We expect the additional compliance time for oxidation reactors to comply with the rule will have an insignificant effect on a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant's overall emissions.
Specifically, in the reconsideration proposal, the EPA discussed hydrogen fluoride emissions reductions of 0.047 tons per year (tpy) from the oxidation reactor (
The revisions related to the gas flow calculation that we are finalizing result in capital cost savings of $88,200 per facility, and capital cost savings of $1,147,200 industry-wide.
The costs described in this action are a result of only the final reconsideration notice, and show a cost savings. The costs were calculated at both a 7-percent rate and a 3-percent rate. There is a reduction in estimated annualized costs calculated at both the 7-percent rate and at the 3-percent rate as a result of all 13 affected facilities implementing a lower cost option to monitor the ratio of liquid-to-gas in low energy absorbers, as compared to the cost of that requirement in the rule promulgated in August 2015. We note that the cost savings presented here are not associated with any change in emission limit, do not result in higher hazardous air pollutant emissions, and do not have a negative effect on human health or the environment.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0361. With this action, the EPA is finalizing amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB that are mainly clarifications to existing rule language to aid in implementation issues raised by stakeholders, or are being made to allow more time for compliance. Therefore, there are no changes to the information collection requirements of the August 19, 2015, final rule, and, consequently, the information collection estimate of projected costs and hour burden from the final rules have not been revised.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action finalizes amendments to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB that are mainly clarifications to existing rule language to aid in implementation issues raised by stakeholders, or are being made to allow more time for compliance.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action finalizes amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB that are mainly clarifications to existing rule language to aid in implementation issues raised by stakeholders, or are being made to allow more time for compliance. We expect the additional compliance time for oxidation reactors will have an insignificant effect on a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant's overall emissions. Hydrogen fluoride emissions from SPA process lines, including oxidation reactors, account for less than 1 percent of all hydrogen fluoride emissions from the source category. Therefore, the amendments should not appreciably increase risk for any populations.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve new technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) The allowable range for the daily averages of the pressure drop across an absorber and of the flow rate of the absorber liquid to each absorber in the process absorbing system, or secondary voltage for a wet electrostatic precipitator, is ±20 percent of the baseline average value determined in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section. The Administrator retains the right to reduce the ±20 percent adjustment to the baseline average values of operating ranges in those instances where performance test results indicate that a source's level of emissions is near the value of an applicable emissions standard. However, the adjustment must not be reduced to less than ±10 percent under any instance.
(e) If you use blower design capacity to determine the gas flow rate through the absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas ratio as specified in Table 3 to this subpart, then you must include in the site-specific monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section calculations showing how you determined the maximum possible gas flow rate through the absorber based on the blower's specifications (including any adjustments you made for pressure drop).
(f) If you use a regression model to determine the gas flow rate through the absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas ratio as specified in Table 3 to this subpart, then you must include in the site-specific monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section the calculations that were used to develop the regression model, including the calculations you use to convert amperage of the blower to brake horsepower. You must describe any constants included in the equations (
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) The allowable range for the daily averages of the pressure drop across an absorber and of the flow rate of the absorber liquid to each absorber in the process absorbing system, or secondary voltage for a wet electrostatic precipitator, is ±20 percent of the baseline average value determined in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section. The Administrator retains the right to reduce the ±20 percent adjustment to the baseline average values of operating ranges in those instances where performance test results indicate that a source's level of emissions is near the value of an applicable emissions standard. However, the adjustment must not be reduced to less than ±10 percent under any instance.
(e) If you use blower design capacity to determine the gas flow rate through the absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas ratio as specified in Table 3 to this subpart, then you must include in the site-specific monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section calculations showing how you determined the maximum possible gas flow rate through the absorber based on the blower's specifications (including any adjustments you made for pressure drop).
(f) If you use a regression model to determine the gas flow rate through the absorber for use in the liquid-to-gas ratio as specified in Table 3 to this subpart, then you must include in the site-specific monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section the calculations that were used to develop the regression model, including the calculations you use to convert amperage of the blower to brake horsepower. You must describe any constants included in the equations (
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to correct an editing oversight that led to a potential conflict in a prior rulemaking as to whether or not containers holding two pounds or less of non-exempt substitute refrigerants for use in motor vehicle air conditioning that are not equipped with a self-sealing valve can be sold to persons that are not certified technicians, provided those small cans were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018. This action clarifies that those small cans may continue to be sold to persons that are not certified as technicians under sections 608 or 609 of the Clean Air Act.
This rule is effective on December 27, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 30, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0213, at
Sara Kemme by regular mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone: (202) 566-0511; or by email:
EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. This rule makes a minor change in regulatory text, which is intended to resolve a potential conflict in the current regulatory text and to ensure that the regulatory text conforms to the EPA's intention when finalizing the regulatory text at issue. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include entities that distribute or sell small cans of refrigerant for use in motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC). Regulated entities include, but are not limited to, manufacturers and distributors of small cans of refrigerant (NAICS codes 325120, 441310, 447110) such as automotive parts and accessories stores and industrial gas manufacturers. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers
A.
B.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
Section 608 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) bears the title “National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program.” Under the structure of section 608, this program has three main components. First, section 608(a) requires EPA to establish standards and requirements regarding use and disposal of class I and II substances, including a comprehensive refrigerant management program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. The CAA directs EPA to include regulations that reduce the use and emissions of class I and II substances to the lowest achievable level and that maximize the recapture and recycling of such substances. The second component, section 608(b), requires that the regulations issued pursuant to subsection (a) contain requirements for the safe disposal of class I and class II substances. The third component, section 608(c), prohibits the knowing venting, release, or disposal of ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances or industrial process refrigeration.
EPA first issued regulations under section 608 of the CAA on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), to establish the national refrigerant management program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances. These regulations were intended to substantially reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. EPA revised these regulations through subsequent rulemakings published on August 19, 1994 (59 FR 42950), November 9, 1994 (59 FR 55912), August 8, 1995 (60 FR 40420), July 24, 2003 (68 FR 43786), March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11946), January 11, 2005 (70 FR 1972), May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), and April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19453). For a more detailed summary of the history of EPA's Refrigerant Management Program see the discussion in the most recent update to these regulations at 81 FR 82272, 82275 (Nov. 18, 2016).
On November 9, 2015, EPA proposed the most recent updates to the refrigerant management regulations under section 608 of the CAA (80 FR 69458). Among other things, EPA proposed to extend the sales restriction to non-exempt substitute refrigerants with an exception for small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC. That is, the proposed revisions would have restricted the sale of non-exempt substitute refrigerants to certified technicians, with an exception for small cans (two pounds or less) of non-exempt substitute refrigerant for the servicing of MVACs
For manufacture and import of small cans of refrigerant for MVAC servicing, EPA is proposing a compliance date of one year from publication of the final rule. EPA is also proposing to allow small cans manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported before that date to be sold for one additional year. For example, if the rule is published on July 1, 2016, small can manufacturers would have until July 1, 2017, to transition their manufacturing lines to add self-sealing valves. Manufacturers, distributors, and auto parts stores would be able to sell all small cans manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported prior to July 1, 2017, until July 1, 2018. EPA seeks comments on this proposed implementation timeline. [80 FR 69509]
On November 18, 2016, EPA published a rule finalizing the proposed restriction that non-exempt substitute refrigerants may only be sold to technicians certified under sections 608 or 609 of the CAA. (81 FR 82280). In the case of refrigerant for use in MVAC, EPA finalized the exemption for the sale of certain small cans of non-ozone-depleting substitutes with a self-sealing valve to allow the do-it-yourself community to continue servicing their personal vehicles.
With regards to small cans of MVAC refrigerant, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of automotive refrigerant supported the proposed “manufacture-by” date of one year from publication of the final rule, but commented that they oppose a sell-through date for small cans that do not have self-sealing valves. They commented that such a requirement would be inefficient, burdensome, costly, and environmentally problematic. It would require all retailers to know of the requirement and establish processes for returning unsold cans back to
EPA described its intention to allow the continued sale of small cans without self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported before the January 1, 2018, compliance date as follows:
In response to the comments received on EPA's proposal to allow small cans manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported before that date to be sold for one additional year, EPA is not finalizing the sell-through requirement and is finalizing only a date by which small cans must be manufactured or imported with a self-sealing valve. EPA agrees that this is the least-burdensome option and that it avoids the potential for any unintended consequences of a “sell-by” date. [81 FR 82342]
These intentions were also expressed in the regulatory text at 40 CFR 82.154(c)(2), which was revised in the November 2016 rule to state: “
The Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute and the Auto Care Association inquired about whether the language in 40 CFR 82.154(c)(1)(ix) effectively negates the provision in 40 CFR 82.154(c)(2) and the preamble discussion showing EPA's intention to allow small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC manufactured or imported before January 1, 2018, to continue to be sold without self-sealing valves. EPA is publishing this direct final rule to revise the regulatory text, so that persons in possession of small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC without self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported before January 1, 2018, can be assured that they will be able to sell off their existing inventories without disruption.
This action will eliminate burden associated with regulatory uncertainty in this area. The Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute and the Auto Care Association informed EPA that the lack of clarity surrounding the status of small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC without self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported before the compliance date is already creating confusion. Unless resolved, this lack of clarity could unnecessarily influence sales of automotive refrigerant during 2017. This is because retailers may not want to stock large numbers of these small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC unless they are given some assurance that they will be able to sell off any remaining inventory after January 1, 2018. There is also the concern that if clarity is not provided by January 1, 2018, retailers may feel compelled to manually pull cans without self-sealing valves from their shelves and return the cans to their supplier(s). This rule will eliminate the cost of that stranded inventory and also eliminate other non-quantified burdens associated with the removal of such cans from the market, such as the labor involved in segregating small cans with self-sealing valves from those without self-sealing valves and physically pulling those from shelves.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0256. These changes do not add information collection requirements beyond those currently required under the applicable regulations.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action clarifies that small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC may be sold to persons who are not certified technicians even if they are not equipped with a self-sealing valve, so long as those small cans are manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action corrects a potential conflict in the refrigerant management regulations as to whether or not small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC could be sold to non-technicians if they were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018, and do not have a self-sealing valve. This action clarifies that those small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC may be sold to persons who are not certified technicians.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action corrects a potential conflict in the refrigerant management regulations as to whether or not small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC could be sold to non-technicians if they were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018, and do not have a self-sealing valve. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action corrects a potential conflict in the refrigerant management regulations as to whether or not small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC could be sold to non-technicians if they were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018, and do not have a self-sealing valve. This action clarifies that those small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC may be sold to persons who are not certified technicians. The documentation for this decision is contained in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0213, where EPA's assessment of the underlying regulatory changes that led to this correction found no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples.
This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 82 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) The non-exempt substitute refrigerant is intended for use in an MVAC and is sold in a container designed to hold two pounds or less of refrigerant, has a unique fitting, and, if manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2018, has a self-sealing valve that complies with the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule; delay of compliance date.
The Office of Head Start will delay the compliance date for background check procedures and the date for programs to participate in their state or local Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS). Both requirements are described in the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS) final rule that was published in the
The date for programs to comply with background checks procedures described in 45 CFR 1302.90(b) and for programs to participate in QRIS described in 45 CFR 1302.53(b)(2) is delayed until September 30, 2018.
Colleen Rathgeb, Division Director of Early Childhood Policy and Budget, Office of Early Childhood Development,
The Head Start program provides grants to local public and private non-profit and for-profit agencies to provide comprehensive education and child development services to economically disadvantaged children, birth to age 5, and families and to help young children develop the skills they need to be successful in school. We amended our Head Start Program Performance Standards in a final rule that published in the
The Head Start Program Performance Standards define requirements grantees and delegate agencies must implement to operate high quality Head Start or Early Head Start programs and provide
Child safety is a top priority in the final rule. We strengthened our criminal background check requirements at 45 CFR 1302.90(b), in the final rule, to reflect changes in the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110-134, and to complement background check requirements in the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act of 2014, Public Law 113-186.
In addition to background check requirements, we aim to strengthen partnerships between states and Head Start programs. As part of this effort, 45 CFR 1302.53(b) in the final rule requires Head Start programs to take an active role in promoting coordinated early childhood systems, including those in their state. As part of these requirements, most Head Start programs must participate in QRIS, if they meet certain conditions.
In the
Generally, 45 CFR 1302.90(b)(1) requires that before a person is hired, programs must conduct a sex offender registry check and obtain either a state or tribal criminal history records, including fingerprint checks, or a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal history records, including fingerprint checks.
In 45 CFR 1302.90(b)(2), (4), and (5), we afford programs 90 days to obtain whichever check they could not obtain before the person was hired, as well as child abuse and neglect state registry check, if available. We require programs to have systems in place that ensure these newly hired employees do not have unsupervised access to children until their background process is complete. A complete background check consists of a sex offender registry check, state or tribal history records, including fingerprint check and FBI criminal history records, including fingerprint check, as well as a child abuse and neglect state registry check, if available. We also require programs to conduct complete background checks for each employee at least once every five years.
We believe programs will need more time to implement systems to complete the backgrounds checks process listed at 45 CFR 1302.90(b)(2), (4), and (5) in our final rule. Also, we recognize most states will have systems that can accommodate our programs' background checks requests by September 30, 2018. Congress requires states that receive CCDBG funds to implement systems for comprehensive background checks for all child care teachers and staff. These states must have requirements, as well as policies and procedures to enforce and conduct criminal background checks for existing and prospective child care providers, by September 30, 2017, but Congress gave states the authority to request extensions until September 30, 2018, and several states have done so. Since these systems enable Head Start programs to meet the HSPPS requirements in 45 CFR 1302.90(b), we can minimize burden on Head Start programs if we extend the compliance date for 45 CFR 1302.90(b) to September 30, 2018. Until September 30, 2018, the criminal record check requirements from section 648A of the Head Start Act continue to remain in place.
QRIS is a systemic approach to assess, improve, and communicate the level of quality in early and school-age care and education programs. QRIS award quality ratings to programs that meet a set of defined program standards. Since the 1990s, many states have developed a QRIS.
The requirements at 45 CFR 1302.53(b) require Head Start programs to take an active role in promoting coordinated early childhood systems to maximize access to services, reduce system duplication, foster informed quality improvement, and ensure Head Start programs are part of larger early childhood systems within their states. These requirements went into effect on November 7, 2016. To further Head Start's role in state systems of quality improvement, the HSPPS requires programs to participate in QRIS, if they meet certain conditions described at 45 CFR 1302.53(b)(2).
We understood from the public comment process and from subsequent discussions with Head Start grantees and state organizations that there are concerns about the time and resources needed by both the states and grantees to ensure Head Start grantees are able to participate in their QRIS. We understand programs have taken steps to participate in QRIS and that many states are assessing their QRIS with new Head Start QRIS participation policies, but additional time is needed to align these systems. We want to minimize any unintentional burden on states that choose to adapt their systems to incorporate Head Start participation, as well as alleviate programs' concerns about meeting the current compliance date for participation in QRIS.
Given the variation in the state/local QRIS landscape and the applicability of the conditions in the regulation, the original compliance date for the requirement in the HSPPS at 45 CFR 1302.53(b)(2) was August 1, 2017 in the previously mentioned compliance table. Through this document, we are delaying the date by which programs must implement the specific requirement for QRIS participation until September 30, 2018. The broader requirement for Head Start programs to take an active role in promoting coordinated early childhood systems continues to be in effect.
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
We find good cause to waive public comment under section 553(b) of the APA because it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to provide for public comment in this instance. The delayed compliance date poses no harm or burden to programs or the public. A period for public comment would have only extended programs'
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; trip limit reduction.
NMFS reduces the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight. This trip limit reduction is necessary to protect the South Atlantic vermilion snapper resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, October 2, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic includes vermilion snapper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared the FMP. The FMP is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The commercial ACL (commercial quota) for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is divided into two 6-month time periods, January through June, and July through December. For the July 1 through December 31, 2017, fishing season, the commercial quota is 388,703 lb (176,313 kg), gutted weight, 431,460 lb (195,707 kg), round weight (50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(ii)(D)). As specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(iii), any unused portion of the commercial quota from the January through June 2017 fishing season will be added to the commercial quota for the July through December 2017 fishing season. Accordingly, NMFS determined that 20,379 lb (9,407 kg), round weight, of the commercial quota was not harvested in the January through June 2017 fishing season, and NMFS added that to the July through December commercial quota.
Under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii), NMFS is required to reduce the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper from 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight, 1,110 lb (503 kg), round weight, to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight, when 75 percent of the fishing season commercial quota is reached or projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. Based on current information, NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the commercial quota for the July through December 2017 fishing season for vermilion snapper (including the January through June unused quota) was reached by September 19, 2017. Accordingly, NMFS is reducing the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight, in or from the South Atlantic EEZ at 12:01 a.m., local time, on October 2, 2017. This reduced commercial trip limit will remain in effect until the start of the next commercial fishing season on January 1, 2018, or until the commercial quota is reached and the commercial sector closes, whichever occurs first.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic vermilion snapper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this commercial trip limit reduction constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary, because the rule establishing the trip limit and trip limit reduction has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit reduction. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest, because any delay in reducing the commercial trip limit could result in the commercial quota being exceeded. There is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the vermilion snapper resource, since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would require time and increase the probability that the commercial sector could exceed its quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule and referendum order.
This decision proposes amendments to Marketing Order No. 982 (order), which regulates the handling of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington, and provides growers with the opportunity to vote in a referendum to determine if they favor the changes. Two amendments are proposed by the Hazelnut Marketing Board (Board), which is responsible for local administration of the order. The proposed amendments would add both the authority to regulate quality for the purpose of pathogen reduction and the authority to establish different regulations for different markets. In addition, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposed to make any such changes as may be necessary to the order to conform to any amendment that may result from the public hearing. The proposals would aid in pathogen reduction and the industry's ability to meet the needs of different market destinations.
The referendum will be conducted from October 16, 2017, through November 3, 2017. The representative period for the purpose of the referendum is July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237.
Melissa Schmaedick, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, Post Office Box 952, Moab, UT 84532; Telephone: (202) 557-4783, Fax: (435) 259-1502, or Julie Santoboni, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on this proceeding by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice of Hearing issued on September 27, 2016, and published in the September 30, 2016, issue of the
This action is governed by the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States Code and, therefore, is excluded from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
Notice of this rulemaking action was provided to tribal governments through the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of Tribal Relations.
The proposed amendments are based on the record of a public hearing held on October 18, 2016, in Wilsonville, Oregon. The hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900). Notice of this hearing was published in the
The amendments in this decision would:
(1) Add authority to regulate quality for the purpose of pathogen reduction;
(2) Add authority to establish different outgoing quality regulations for different markets; and
(3) Make any such changes as may be necessary to the order to conform to any amendment that may be adopted, or to correct minor inconsistencies and typographical errors.
USDA is recommending one clarifying change to the language in the proposed new paragraph 982.45(c), which would add authority to regulate quality. USDA has determined that the language as presented in the Notice of Hearing was redundant and, therefore, confusing. USDA has revised the proposed language in the new paragraph § 982.45 (c) so that its intent is more clearly stated. This new language is included in the proposed regulatory text of this decision.
Upon the basis of evidence introduced at the hearing and the record thereof, the Administrator of AMS on June 5, 2017, filed with the Hearing Clerk, USDA, a Recommended Decision and Opportunity to File Written Exceptions thereto by July 12, 2017. No exceptions were filed.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders and amendments thereto are unique in that they are normally brought about through group
According to the hearing transcript, there are currently over 800 hazelnut growers in the production area. According to National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data presented at the hearing, 2015 grower receipts averaged $2,800 per ton. With a total 2015 production of 31,000 tons, the farm gate value for hazelnuts in that year totaled $86.8 million ($2,800 per ton multiplied by 31,000 tons). Taking the total value of production for hazelnuts and dividing it by the total number of hazelnut growers provides a return per grower of $108,500. A small grower as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) is one that grosses less than $750,000 annually. Therefore, a majority of hazelnut growers are considered small entities under the SBA standards. Record evidence indicates that approximately 98 percent of hazelnut growers are small businesses.
According to the industry, there are 17 hazelnut handlers, four of which handle 80 percent of the crop. While market prices for hazelnuts were not included among the data presented at the hearing, an estimation of handler receipts can be calculated using the 2015 grower receipt value of $86.8 million. Multiplying $86.8 million by 80 percent ($86.8 million × 80 percent = $69.4 million) and dividing by four indicates that the largest hazelnut handlers received an estimated $17.3 million each. Dividing the remaining 20 percent of $86.8 million, or $17.4 million, by the remaining 13 handlers, indicates average receipts of $1.3 million each. A small agricultural service firm is defined by the SBA as one that grosses less than $7,500,000. Based on the above calculations, a majority of hazelnut handlers are considered small entities under SBA's standards.
The production area regulated under the order covers Oregon and Washington. According to the record, Eastern Filbert Blight has heavily impacted hazelnut production in Washington. One witness stated that there currently is no commercial production in that state. As a result, production data entered into the record pertains almost exclusively to Oregon.
NASS data indicates bearing acres of hazelnuts reached a fifteen-year high during the 2013-2014 crop year at 30,000 acres. Acreage has remained steady, at 30,000 bearing acres for the 2015-2016 crop year. By dividing 30,000 acres by 800 growers, NASS data indicate there are approximately 37.5 acres per grower. Industry testimony estimates that due to new plantings, there are potentially 60,000 bearing acres of hazelnuts, or an estimated 75 bearing acres per hazelnut grower.
During the hearing held October 18, 2016, interested parties were invited to present evidence on the probable regulatory impact of the proposed amendments to the order on small businesses. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that none of the proposed amendments would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small agricultural growers or firms.
The proposal described in Material Issue 1 would amend § 982.45 to authorize the Board to establish minimum quality requirements and § 982.46 to allow for certification and inspection to enforce quality regulations.
Presently, the Board is charged with assuring hazelnuts meet grade and size standards. The Board also has the authority to employ volume control. If finalized, this proposal would authorize the Board to propose quality regulations that require a treatment to reduce pathogen load prior to shipping hazelnuts. Witnesses supported this proposal and stated that treatment regulation would not significantly impact the majority of handlers since most handlers already treat product prior to shipment. Witness testimony indicated that the proposed amendment would lower the likelihood of a product recall incident and the associated negative economic impacts. Witnesses noted that the proposed amendment would give the Board flexibility to ensure consumer confidence in the quality of hazelnuts.
It is determined that the additional costs incurred to regulate quality would be greatly outweighed by the increased flexibility for the industry to respond to changing quality regulation and food safety. There is expected to be no financial impact on growers. Mandatory treatment requirements should not cause dramatic increases in handler operating costs, as most already voluntarily treat hazelnuts. Handlers bear the direct cost associated with installing and operating treatment equipment or contract out the treatment of product to a third party.
According to the industry, most domestic hazelnut product is shipped to California for treatment with propylene oxide. The cost to ship and treat product is estimated to be 10 cents per pound or less. Using 2014-2015 shipment data, at 10 cents per pound, the cost to ship and treat the 6.5 million pounds of Oregon hazelnuts shipped to the domestic market is not expected to exceed $650,000. Shipments to foreign markets typically do not require treatment and therefore have no associated treatment costs. Large handlers who wish to install treatment equipment may face costs ranging from $100,000 to $5,000,000 depending on the treatment system.
One witness noted that mandatory treatment would benefit the industry by addressing the free-rider situation in which handlers who do not treat the product benefit from consumer confidence while incurring additional risks. Handlers that do treat product absorb all costs of treatment while building the reputation of the industry.
The record shows that the proposal to add authority to establish different outgoing quality requirements for different markets would, in itself, have no economic impact on growers or handlers of any size. Regulations implemented under that authority could impose additional costs on handlers required to comply with them. However, witnesses testified that establishing mandatory regulations for different markets could increase the industry's credibility and reduce the risk that shipments of substandard product could jeopardize the entire industry's reputation. Record evidence shows that any additional costs are likely to be offset by the benefits of complying with those requirements.
For the reasons described above, it is determined that the costs attributed to the above-proposed changes are minimal; therefore, the proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposal described in Material Issue 2 would allow for the establishment of different outgoing quality regulations for different markets.
Witnesses testified that allowing different regulations for different markets would likely lower the costs to handlers and prevent multiple treatments of hazelnuts while preserving hazelnut quality.
Certain buyers of hazelnuts do not require prior treatment and perform their own kill-step processes such as roasting, baking or pasteurization. A witness stated that two of the largest buyers of hazelnuts, Diamond of
Shipments to foreign markets often do not require treatment and are treated after exportation. Testimony indicated that during the 2014-2015 season, of the 9.5 million pounds of kernel hazelnuts shipped to Canada, almost all were further treated by the customers. In conjunction with the proposed quality authority discussed in Material Issue 1, specific regulation could be developed to exempt exported product, subject to further pathogen-reduction treatment in the country of purchase, from mandatory treatment. In Canada, the purchaser, not the handler, is responsible for providing pathogen reduction treatment. Requiring handlers to treat hazelnuts before export would be duplicative in cost and treatment. At 10 cents per pound, it is estimated that on sales to Canada alone, handler savings could reach as much as $950,000 (9.5 million pounds of shipments multiplied by 10 cents per pound), if exempted from the mandatory treatment requirement. Hazelnuts shipped to China are typically processed after arrival and also do not necessitate treatment by handlers in the United States.
China is a major export market for inshell hazelnuts. According to the hearing transcript, from 2011-2015, 54 percent of inshell hazelnuts were exported. The total value of inshell exports was approximately $41,340,780, if 54 percent is multiplied by the $76,557,000 total hazelnut exports. In 2015-2016 China received 90 percent of U.S. inshell hazelnut exports. The 2015-2016 value of U.S. hazelnut exports to China is estimated to be approximately $37,206,702, or 90 percent of the value of all U.S. inshell exports. Oregon hazelnuts compete primarily with Turkish (kernel) and Chilean (inshell) hazelnuts. Testimony indicates that multiple treatments of hazelnuts would likely affect the quality of hazelnuts. Allowing for different regulations for different markets would help Oregon and Washington hazelnuts compete in foreign markets and maintain U.S. market share. It is estimated that 80 to 90 percent of product is already being treated, and thus, the cost has already been incorporated into the price purchasers pay.
One witness noted that shipments to the European Union may require different regulations since this market prefers certain treatment processes.
The record shows that the proposal to add authority to establish different outgoing quality requirements for different markets would, in itself, have no economic impact on growers or handlers of any size. Regulations implemented under that authority could potentially impose additional costs on handlers required to comply with them.
For the reasons described above, it is determined that the benefits of adding authority for different market regulations to the order would outweigh the potential costs of future implementation.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this proposed rule. These amendments are intended to improve the operation and administration of the order and to assist in the marketing of hazelnuts.
Board meetings regarding these proposals, as well as the hearing date and location, were widely publicized throughout the Oregon and Washington hazelnut industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and the hearing to participate in Board deliberations on all issues. All Board meetings and the hearing were public forums, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on these issues. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory impacts of this action on small businesses.
Current information collection requirements for part 982 are approved by OMB, under OMB Number 0581-0189—“Generic OMB Fruit Crops.” No changes are anticipated in these requirements as a result of this proceeding. Should any such changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.
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.
The amendments to the order proposed herein have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have retroactive effect. If adopted, the proposed amendments would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this proposal.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of entry of the ruling.
The findings and conclusions, rulings, and general findings and determinations included in the Recommended Decision set forth in the June 12, 2017, issue of the
Annexed hereto and made a part hereof is the document entitled “Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and Washington.” This document has been decided upon as the detailed and appropriate means of effectuating the foregoing findings and conclusions.
It is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted in accordance with the procedure for the conduct of referenda (7 CFR 900.400-407) to determine whether the annexed order amending the order regulating the handling of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington is approved or favored by growers, as defined under the terms of the order, who during the representative period were engaged in the production of hazelnuts in the production area.
The representative period for the conduct of such referendum is hereby determined to be July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
The agents of the Secretary to conduct such referendum are hereby designated to be Dale Novotny and Gary Olson, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, Suite 305, Portland, Oregon 97204; telephone: (503) 326-2724; or fax: (503) 326-7440 or Email:
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations that were previously made in connection with the issuance of the marketing order; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), and the applicable rules of practice and procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR part 900), a public hearing was held upon proposed further amendment of Marketing Order No. 982, regulating the handling of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington.
Upon the basis of the record, it is found that:
(1) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(2) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, regulates the handling of hazelnuts grown in the production area in the same manner as, and are applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing order upon which a hearing has been held;
(3) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, is limited in its application to the smallest regional production area that is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;
(4) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington; and
(5) All handling of hazelnuts grown in the production area as defined in the marketing order is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.
The provisions of the proposed marketing order amending the order contained in the Recommended Decision issued on June 5, 2017, and published in the June 12, 2017, issue of the
Hazelnuts, Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
(d)
The revisions to read as follows:
(c)
(d)
(d) Whenever quality regulations are in effect pursuant to § 982.45, each handler shall certify that all product to be handled or credited in satisfaction of a restricted obligation meets the quality regulations as prescribed.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is proposing to amend the rules of practice of its Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) to implement procedures for protests of eligibility for inclusion in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) database, and procedures for appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database. These amendments would be in accordance with Sections 1832 and 1833 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA 2017).
Comments must be received on or before October 30, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AG87 by any of the following methods:
•
•
SBA will post all comments on
Daniel K. George, Attorney Advisor, at (202) 401-8200 or
Sections 1832 and 1833 of the NDAA 2017 authorized the SBA's OHA to determine protests and appeals related to inclusion in the CVE database. In order to implement these sections, this proposed rule would amend OHA's jurisdiction at subparts A and B of 13 CFR part 134 to include protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database and appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database. In addition, the proposed rule would create a new subpart J in 13 CFR part 134 to set out detailed rules of practice for protests of eligibility for inclusion in the VA CVE database, and a new subpart K to set out detailed rules of practice for appeals of denials and cancellations of verification for inclusion in the VA's CVE database.
SBA proposes to amend § 134.102, the rules for establishing OHA jurisdiction, to add protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database and appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database, as two new types of proceedings over which OHA would have jurisdiction. New § 134.102(u) would allow for protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database. New § 134.102(v) would allow for appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database.
SBA also proposes to amend § 134.201(b) by adding new paragraphs (8) and (9) to include protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database and appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database. As a result of these new paragraphs, existing § 134.201(b)(8) would be redesignated as § 134.201(b)(10).
SBA proposes to add new subpart J, consisting of §§ 134.1001-1013, in order to conform OHA's rules of practice for protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database (CVE Protests). As a result, the new rules of practice for protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database would mirror SBA's existing rules for protests of service-disabled veteran owned small businesses, found in 13 CFR part 125 subpart D.
Proposed § 134.1001(b) states that the provisions of subparts A and B also apply to protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database. Section 134.1001(c) adds that the protest procedures are separate from those governing Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern (SDVO SBC) protests for non-VA procurements, which are subject to 13 CFR part 125. Section 134.1001(d) states that protests of a concern's eligibility for a non-VA procurement as an SDVO SBC are governed by 13 CFR part 125. In addition, § 134.1001(e) specifies that appeals that relate to a determination made by the SBA's Director, Office of Government Contracting (D/GC) are governed by subpart E of 13 CFR part 125.
As proposed in § 134.1002, the Secretary of the VA, or his/her designee, as well as the Contracting Officer (CO) or an offeror in a VA procurement awarded to a small business may file a CVE Protest. A protesting offeror need not be the offeror next in line for award.
Section 134.1003 establishes the grounds for filing a CVE Protest as status, and ownership and control. Paragraph (c) requires the Judge to determine a protested concern's eligibility for inclusion in the CVE as of the date the protest was filed.
Section 134.1004(a) establishes the deadlines for filing a CVE Protest, which is at any time for the Secretary of the VA and any time during the life of a contract for the CO. Paragraph (a)(2)(i) instructs that an offeror must file its protest within five days of being notified of the identity of the apparent awardee. Paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) indicate the rule for counting days and that any untimely protest will be dismissed. Paragraph (b) describes the methods for filing a CVE Protest by interested parties. A CVE Protest brought by an offeror is filed with the CO, who then forwards the protest to OHA.
Section 134.1005 specifies the contents that every CVE Protest must have. Paragraph (b) would require a protective order be requested within five days of a protest being filed.
Section 134.1006 would apply the servicing and filing requirements found at § 134.204.
Section 134.1007 would establish the process of CVE Protests as follows: Paragraph (a) would require OHA to issue a notice and order if the protest is found to be timely, specific, and based on protectable allegations; paragraph (b) would require dismissal of a protest if the Judge determines the protest to be premature, untimely, nonspecific, or based on non-protestable allegations; paragraph (c) would require the Director of the CVE (D/CVE) to send the case file to OHA by the deadline specified in the notice and order; paragraph (d) describes the process for requesting a protective order; paragraph (e) allows for supplemental arguments after a protester reviews the CVE case file; paragraph (f) allows for a response to a protest within 15 days of the date the protest was filed; and paragraph (g) would require the Judge to base the decision on the case file and information provided by the parties or information requested by the Judge. The Judge may also investigate issues beyond those raised by the parties. Paragraph (h) proposes to allow a CO to award the contract after a protest is filed but before a decision is reached if the CO determines the public interest will be protected and notifies the Judge of his/her decision; paragraph (i) would require OHA to serve all parties with the decision, which would be considered a final agency decision; finally, paragraph (j) stipulates the effects of the decision upon the protested concern and the contract at issue.
Section 134.1008 prohibits discovery in CVE Protest proceedings.
Section 134.1009 allows for oral hearings only in extraordinary circumstances, as found by the Judge, and establishes that if a hearing is allowed, it would be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice in subpart B of Part 134.
Section 134.1010 establishes the standard of review as preponderance of the evidence, in which the burden of proof falls on the protested firm, not the protester.
Section 134.1011 specifies that the Judge will give greater weight to specific, signed, factual evidence than to unsupported allegations and opinions, and provides that the Judge may draw an adverse inference from failure to produce relevant information.
Section 134.1012 applies the provisions of § 134.225 where relevant.
Under § 134.1013, there will be no appeal of OHA's decision on a CVE Protest. However, paragraph (a) allows for the Judge to reconsider a CVE Protest decision if a party to the proceeding files a petition for reconsideration within twenty (20) calendar days after issuance of the written decision. The request for reconsideration must clearly show an error of fact or law material to the decision. The Judge may also reconsider a decision on his or her own initiative. Paragraph (b) states that if the Judge reverses the initial decision on reconsideration, the CO must comply with § 134.1007(j) in applying the new decision's results.
The rule proposes a new subpart K to cover the procedures for filing appeals of denials and cancellations of verification for inclusion in the VA CVE database (CVE Appeals). Section 134.1101 states that the provisions of subparts A and B also apply to CVE Appeals. Section 134.1101(c) adds that the appeal procedures for CVE Appeals are separate from those governing SDVO SBC status appeals based on D/GC determinations, which are subject to 13 CFR 134 subpart E. Paragraph (d) states that protests of a concern's eligibility for inclusion in the VA's CVE database are governed by 13 CFR 134 subpart J.
Section 134.1102 establishes standing to file a CVE Appeal upon a concern that has been denied verification of its CVE status or had its CVE status cancelled.
Section 134.1103 permits CVE Appeals to OHA as long as the denial or cancellation was not based on the concern's failure to meet any veteran or service-disabled veteran eligibility criteria.
Section 134.1104 requires CVE Appeals to be filed within 10 business days of being notified that the CVE status has been denied or cancelled. Paragraph (b) establishes the rules for counting days as those in § 134.202(d). Paragraph (c) requires OHA to dismiss any untimely appeal.
Section 134.1105(a) requires the appeal petition to include a copy of the denial or cancellation, a statement as to why the cancellation or denial is in error, any information the appellant believes the Judge should consider, and the name, address, telephone number, facsimile number, and signature of appellant or its attorney. Paragraph (b) requires that the appellant serve copies of the appeal upon the D/CVE and VA counsel. Paragraph (c) requires all appeal petitions to include a certificate of service that meets the requirements of § 134.204(d). Paragraph (d) allows the Judge to dismiss appeal petitions that do not meet all the requirements of § 134.1105.
Section 134.1106 applies the provisions in § 134.204 regarding the service and filing requirements of all pleadings and submissions allowed under 13 CFR part 134, subpart K.
Section 134.1107 requires the D/CVE to send OHA the entire case file relating to the denial or cancellation, by the deadline specified in the notice and order. The case file must be authenticated and certified that it is the true and correct copy of the case file, to the best knowledge of the D/CVE.
Section 134.1108 would permit a response to the appeal petition. Paragraph (a) allows the D/CVE, or his/her designee, or VA counsel, to respond to the appeal. Paragraph (b) establishes the close of record as 15 days after the Judge issues a notice and order informing all parties of the filing of the appeal. The notice and order would establish the date all responses to the appeal petition would be due. Paragraph (c) requires all respondents to serve their response upon all parties identified in the certificate of service attached to the appeal petition, as required by § 134.1105. Paragraph (d) prevents a reply to a response, unless allowed by the Judge.
Section 134.1109 does not allow for discovery or oral hearings in CVE Appeals.
Section 134.1110 prevents new evidence in CVE Appeals, unless good cause is shown.
Under § 134.1111, the standard of review for CVE Appeals would be whether the denial or cancellation by the D/CVE was based on clear error of fact or law, which the appellant would have the burden of proof.
Under § 134.1112(a), the Judge will decide a CVE Appeal, if practicable, within 60 calendar days after the close of record. Paragraph (b) requires the decision to contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, and any reasons for those findings and conclusions, and any relief so ordered. Paragraph (c) requires decisions to be based primarily on the evidence in the CVE case file, and arguments made during the appeal process. The Judge will, however, have the ability to consider issues that are beyond those raised by any pleading or in the denial or cancellation letter. Paragraph (d) establishes a Judge's decision as the final agency decision, becoming effective immediately. If OHA dismisses an appeal of a D/CVE denial or cancellation, the D/CVE determination remains in effect.
OMB has determined that this rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. This rule is also not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 800. This proposed rule would amend the rules of practice for the SBA's OHA in order to implement procedures for protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database and appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database. As such, the rule has no effect on the amount or dollar value of any Federal contract requirements or of any financial assistance provided through SBA or VA. Therefore, the rule is not likely to have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more, result in a major increase in costs or prices, or have a significant adverse effect on competition or the United States economy. In addition, this rule does not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs or the rights and obligations of such recipients, nor raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
This action meets applicable standards set forth in section 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.
This rule does not have Federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in the Executive Order. As such it does not warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
The SBA has determined that this rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires Federal agencies to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) to consider the potential impact of the regulations on small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an IRFA, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would revise the regulations governing cases before SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), SBA's administrative tribunal. These regulations are procedural by nature. Specifically, the proposed rule would establish rules of practice for the SBA's OHA in order to implement protests of eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database and appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database, new types of administrative litigation mandated by sections 1832 and 1833 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. This legislation provides a new statutory right to challenge eligibility for inclusion in the CVE database, as well as denials and cancellation of inclusion in the CVE database. This proposed rule merely provides the rules of practice at OHA for the orderly hearing and disposition of CVE database inclusion protests and denials and cancellations of CVE database inclusion. While SBA does not anticipate that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on any small business, we do welcome comments from any small business setting out how and to what degree this proposed rule would affect it economically. Therefore, the Administrator of SBA certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal access to justice, Lawyers, Organization and functions (government agencies).
For the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA proposes to amend 13 CFR part 134 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 504; 15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 634(i), 637(a), 648(l), 656(i), and 687(c); 38 U.S.C. 8127(f); E.O. 12549, 51 FR 6370, 3 CFR, 1986 Comp., p. 189.
(u) Protests of eligibility for inclusion in the Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) database;
(v) Appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database.
The additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(8) For protests of eligibility for inclusion in the Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) database, in subpart J of this part;
(9) For appeals of denials and cancellations of inclusion in the CVE database, in subpart K of this part; and
38 U.S.C. 8127(f)(8)(B).
(a) The rules of practice in this subpart J apply to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Verification and Evaluation protests (CVE Protests).
(b) Except where inconsistent with this subpart, the provisions of subparts A and B of this part apply to protests listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The protest procedures described in this subpart are separate from those governing protests and appeals of a concern's size or status as a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern (SDVO SBC) for a non-Department of Veterans Affairs (non-VA) procurement. All protests relating to whether a veteran-owned concern is a “small” business for purposes of any Federal program are subject to part 121 of this chapter and must be filed in accordance with that part. If a protester protests both the size of the concern and the concern's eligibility for the CVE database, SBA will process each protest concurrently. All protests relating to a concern's status as a SDVO SBC for a non-VA procurement are subject to part 125 of this chapter and must be filed in accordance with that part. SBA does not review issues concerning contract administration.
(d) Protests of a concern's eligibility for a non-VA procurement as a SDVO SBC are governed by 13 CFR part 125 subpart D.
(e) Appeals relating to determinations made by SBA's Director, Office of Government Contracting regarding SDVO SBC status are governed by subpart E of this part.
(f) Appeals of denials and cancellations of verification for inclusion in the CVE database are governed by subpart K of this part.
A CVE Protest may be filed by:
(a) The Secretary of the VA, or his/her designee; or
(b) In the case of a small business that is awarded a contract for a VA procurement, the contracting officer or an offeror.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(2) Where the CVE Protest is in connection with a VA procurement:
(i) An offeror must file a CVE Protest within five business days of notification of the apparent awardee's identity.
(ii) A contracting officer may file a CVE Protest at any time during the life of the VA contract.
(3) The rule for counting days is in § 134.202(d).
(4) An untimely protest will be dismissed.
(b)
(2)
(i) The solicitation number;
(ii) The name, address, telephone number, email address, and facsimile number of the contracting officer;
(iii) Whether the contract was sole source or set-aside;
(iv) Whether the protester submitted an offer;
(v) Whether the protested concern was the apparent successful offeror;
(vi) Whether the procurement was conducted using sealed bid or negotiated procedures;
(vii) The bid opening date, if applicable;
(viii) When the protest was submitted to the contracting officer;
(ix) When the protester received notification about the apparent successful offeror, if applicable; and
(x) Whether a contract has been awarded.
(3)
(4)
(a) CVE Protests must be in writing. There is no required format for a CVE Protest, but it must include the following:
(1) The solicitation or contract number, if applicable;
(2) Specific allegations supported by credible evidence that the concern does not meet the eligibility requirements for
(3) Any other pertinent information the Judge should consider; and
(4) The name, address, telephone number, and email address or facsimile number, if available, and signature of the protester or its attorney.
(b) If the protester intends to seek access to the CVE case file under § 134.205, the protester should include in its protest a request for a protective order. Unless good cause is shown, a protester must request a protective order within five days of filing the protest.
The provisions of § 134.204 apply to the service and filing of all pleadings and other submissions permitted under this subpart.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(2)
(3)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(2) A contracting officer shall not award a contract to a protested concern that the Judge has determined is not eligible for inclusion in the CVE database. If the contracting officer has already made an award under paragraph (h) of this section, the contracting officer shall either terminate the contract or not exercise the next option.
(3) The contracting officer must update the Federal Procurement Data System and other procurement reporting databases to reflect the Judge's decision.
(4) If the Judge finds the protested concern ineligible for inclusion in the CVE database, D/CVE must immediately remove the protested concern from the CVE database.
(5) A concern found to be ineligible may not submit an offer on a future VA procurement until the protested concern reapplies to the Vendor Information Pages Verification Program and has been reentered into the CVE database.
Discovery will not be permitted in CVE Protest proceedings.
Oral hearings will be held in CVE Protest proceedings only upon a finding by the Judge of extraordinary circumstances. If such an oral hearing is ordered, the proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with those rules of subpart B of this part as the Judge deems appropriate.
The protested concern has the burden of proving its eligibility, by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Judge will give greater weight to specific, signed, factual evidence than to general, unsupported allegations or opinions. In the case of refusal or failure to furnish requested information within a required time period, the Judge may assume that disclosure would be contrary to the interests of the party failing to make disclosure.
Where relevant, the provisions of § 134.225 apply. In a protest under this subpart, the contents of the record also include the case file or solicitation submitted to OHA in accordance with § 134.1007.
The decision on a CVE Protest may not be appealed. However:
(a) The Judge may reconsider a CVE Protest decision. Any party that has appeared in the proceeding, or the Secretary of VA or his/her designee, may request reconsideration by filing with OHA and serving a petition for reconsideration on all the parties to the CVE Protest within twenty (20) calendar days after service of the written decision. The request for reconsideration must clearly show an error of fact or law material to the
(b) If the Judge reverses his or her initial decision on reconsideration, the contracting officer must follow § 134.1007(j) in applying the new decision's results.
38 U.S.C. 8127(f)(8)(A).
(a) The rules of practice in this subpart K apply to appeals of denials and cancellations of verification for inclusion in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Verification and Evaluation Database (CVE Appeals).
(b) Except where inconsistent with this subpart, the provisions of subparts A and B of this part apply to appeals listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Appeals relating to determinations made by SBA's Director, Office of Government Contracting regarding Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern (SDVO SBC) status are governed by subpart E of this part.
(d) Protests of a concern's eligibility for inclusion in the VA's CVE database are governed by subpart J of this part.
A concern that has been denied verification of its CVE status or has had its CVE status cancelled may appeal the denial or cancellation to OHA.
Denials and cancellations of verification of CVE status may be appealed to OHA, so long as the denial or cancellation is not based on the failure to meet any veteran or service-disabled veteran eligibility criteria. Such denials and cancellations are final VA decisions and not subject to appeal to OHA.
(a) A concern whose application for CVE verification has been denied or whose CVE status has been cancelled must file its appeal within 10 business days of receipt of the denial or cancellation.
(b) The rule for counting days is in § 134.202(d).
(c) OHA will dismiss an untimely appeal.
(a)
(1) A copy of the denial or cancellation and the date the appellant received it;
(2) A statement of why the cancellation or denial is in error;
(3) Any other pertinent information the Judge should consider; and
(4) The name, address, telephone number, and email address or facsimile number, if available, and signature of the appellant or its attorney.
(b)
(c)
(d)
The provisions of § 134.204 apply to the service and filing of all pleadings and other submissions permitted under this subpart.
Once a CVE Appeal is filed, the D/CVE must deliver to OHA the entire case file relating to the denial or cancellation. The Judge will issue a notice and order establishing the timetable for transmitting the case file to OHA. The D/CVE must certify and authenticate that the case file, to the best of his/her knowledge, is a true and correct copy of the case file.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Discovery will not be permitted and oral hearings will not be held.
Except for good cause shown, evidence beyond the case file will not be admitted.
The standard of review is whether the D/CVE denial or cancellation was based on clear error of fact or law. The appellant has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 875-17, RB211-Trent 877-17, RB211-Trent 884-17, RB211-Trent 884B-17, RB211-Trent 892-17, RB211-Trent 892B-17, and RB211-Trent 895-17 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by low-pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins that may have reduced integrity due to incorrect heat treatment. This proposed AD would require replacement of the LPC case A-frame hollow locating pins. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this NPRM by October 30, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
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
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2017-0096, dated June 1, 2017 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
All low pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins, Part Number (P/N) FK11612, manufactured between 01 January 2012 and 31 May 2016, have potentially been subjected to incorrect heat treatment. This may have reduced the integrity of the pin such that in a Fan Blade Off (FBO) event it is unable to withstand the applied loads. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of location of the A-frame following an FBO event, possibly resulting in engine separation, loss of thrust reverser unit, release of high-energy debris, or an uncontrolled fire. To address this potential unsafe condition, RR identified the affected engines that have these A-frame hollow locating pins installed and published Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AJ463, providing instructions for replacement of these pins. The NMSB was recently revised to correct an error in Section 1.A., where ESN 51477 was inadvertently omitted. That ESN was correctly listed in Section 1.D.(1)(f) for the compliance time. For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time replacement of the affected A-frame hollow locating pins P/N FK11612. This AD also prohibits installation of pins that were released to service before 05 July 2016.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
RR has issued Alert Non Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017. The Alert SB describes procedures for replacement of all non-conforming A-frame locating pins. 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 the United Kingdom, and is approved for operation
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 95 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This 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 engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 October 30, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17 and 895-17 engines with an engine serial number (ESN) listed in Section 1.A., Effectivity, of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by low-pressure compressor (LPC) case A-frame hollow locating pins that may have reduced integrity due to incorrect heat treatment. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the locating pins, engine separation and loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) At the next scheduled on-wing maintenance opportunity after the effective date of this AD, replace each affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin using Section 3, Accomplishment Instructions, of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017, within the compliance times listed in Section 1.D.(1), Planning Information, except for those listed in Sections 1.D.(1)(a) and (b) that have a compliance requirement of November 13, 2017.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, at the next engine shop visit, replace each affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin, part number (P/N) FK11612, with a part eligible for installation, using Section 3, Accomplishment Instructions, of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install any engine with an affected LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin, P/N FK11612, unless the pin is eligible for installation.
For the purposes of this AD:
(1) An affected part is an LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin, P/N FK11612, except those with an original RR authorized release certificate dated July 5, 2016, or later.
(2) A part eligible for installation is an LPC case A-frame hollow locating pin, P/N FK11612, with an original RR authorized release certificate dated July 5, 2016, or later.
(3) An engine shop visit is when the engine is subject to a serviceability check and repair, rebuild, or overhaul.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2017-0096, dated June 1, 2017, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) Rolls-Royce plc Alert Non Modification Service Bulletin RB.211-72-AJ463, Revision 2, dated June 28, 2017, can be obtained from RR plc, using the contact information in paragraph (k)(4) of this proposed AD.
(4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
This NPRM provides interested parties with the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations governing the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Program for Eliminating Duplication of Environmental Reviews (Program) established by Section 1309 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). Section 1309 directed the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to establish a pilot program authorizing up to five States to conduct environmental reviews and make approvals for projects under State environmental laws and regulations instead of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FAST Act requires the Secretary, in consultation with the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to promulgate regulations to implement the requirements of the Program, including application requirements and criteria necessary to determine whether State laws and regulations are at least as stringent as the applicable Federal law. The FHWA, FRA, and FTA, hereinafter referred to as “the Agencies,” are proposing these regulations on behalf of the Secretary and seek comments on the proposals contained in this NPRM. This rule would also implement a provision in Section 1308 of the FAST Act that amends the corrective action period that the Agencies must provide to a State participating in the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (Section 327 Program).
Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by the document number at the top of this document, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For FHWA, James Gavin, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, (202) 366-1473, or Diane Mobley, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1366. For FRA, Michael Johnsen, Office of Railroad Policy and Development, (202) 493-1310, or Chris Van Nostrand, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 493-6058. For FTA, Megan Blum, Office of Planning and Environment, (202) 366-0463, or Helen Serassio, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1974. The Agencies are located at 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312), which contains new requirements related to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
Section 1308(5) of the FAST Act amended the 23 U.S.C. 327(j) termination procedures for the Section 327 Program by: (1) Changing the number of days for corrective action the Agencies must provide to the State from 30 days to not less than 120 calendar days, and 2) upon the request of the Governor of the State, requiring the Agencies provide a detailed description of each responsibility in need of corrective action.
Under Section 1309 of the FAST Act (23 U.S.C. 330), DOT, in consultation with the Chair of CEQ, must promulgate regulations implementing the requirements of that provision. The proposed regulations would establish the Program, specify the information that applicants must submit to participate in the Program, and define the criteria the Agencies, in consultation with the Office of the Secretary and with the concurrence of the Chair of CEQ, will use to determine whether a State law or regulation is as stringent as the Federal requirements under NEPA, the procedures implementing NEPA, and NEPA-related regulations and Executive Orders. This NPRM proposes regulations establishing the Program and requests the public's comments.
The Agencies propose a title to this part that clearly describes the Program's scope.
The Agencies propose a section to explain the purpose of the Program.
The Agencies propose a section describing the Program's eligibility requirements and the limitations of a State's participation.
This section proposes four requirements necessary for a State to participate in the Program. First, a State must act through the Governor or top-ranking State transportation official who is charged with responsibility for highway construction. Second, a State must expressly consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. District Courts for compliance, discharge, and enforcement of any responsibility under this Program. Third, a State must have assumed the responsibilities of the Secretary under 23 U.S.C. 327. Fourth, a State must have laws in effect authorizing the State to take the actions necessary to carry out the alternative environmental review and approval procedures under State laws and regulations.
Section 778.103 identifies two conditions governing a State's participation in the Program. First, State environmental laws and regulations may only be substituted as a means for complying with NEPA, procedures governing the implementation of NEPA, and related regulations and Executive Orders. Second, compliance with State environmental laws and regulations does not substitute for compliance with any other applicable Federal environmental requirements.
The Agencies propose a section describing the required content of an eligible State's application to participate in the Program.
To participate in the Program, any eligible State would submit an application that includes:
(1) A full and complete description of the alternative environmental review and approval procedures the State proposes to use, including (i) the procedures the State uses to engage the public and consider alternatives to the proposed action; and (ii) the extent to which the State considers environmental consequences or impacts on resources potentially impacted by the proposed actions (40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8).
(2) Identification of each Federal environmental requirement the State is seeking to substitute, within the limitations of this section;
(3) Identification of each State environmental law and regulation that the State intends to substitute for a Federal environmental requirement, within the limitations of this section;
(4) A detailed explanation of how the State environmental law and regulation intended to substitute for a Federal environmental requirement is at least as stringent as the Federal requirement;
(5) A detailed description of the projects or classes of transportation projects for which the State anticipates exercising the authority that may be granted under the Program;
(6) Verification that the State has the financial and personnel resources necessary to carry out the Program;
(7) Evidence that the State has sought public comments on its application prior to its submittal and the State's response to any comments it received;
(8) A point of contact for questions regarding the application and a point of contact regarding potential implementation of the Program (if different);
(9) Certification and explanation by the State's Attorney General or other State official legally empowered by State law to issue legal opinions that bind the State that the State has legal authority to enter into the Program, and that the State consents to exclusive Federal court jurisdiction for the compliance, discharge, and enforcement of any responsibility under this Program;
(10) Certification by the State's Attorney General or other State official legally empowered by State law to issue legal opinions that bind the State that the State has laws that are comparable to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, including providing that any decision regarding the public availability of a document under those laws is reviewable by a court of competent jurisdiction; and
(11) The State Governor's (or in the case of the District of Columbia, the Mayor's) or the State's top ranking transportation official's signature approving the application.
The Agencies propose a section establishing the review and approval process for a State's application to the Program.
To begin the review and approval process, the applicable Operating Administration also would solicit public comments on a State's complete application and would consider comments before making a decision on the application. In addition to the State's application, the Operating Administration may provide other documents for public review such as a draft of the proposed agreement. After receiving a complete application, the Operating Administration would have 120 calendar days to make a decision on the State's application. The Operating Administration would transmit the decision to the applicant, with an explanation in writing.
In making the decision, the Operating Administration would approve a State's application only if:
(1) That State is party to an agreement with the Operating Administration under 23 U.S.C. 327;
(2) The Operating Administration has determined, after considering any public comments received, the State has the capacity, including financial and
(3) The Operating Administration, in consultation with the Office of the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Chair of CEQ, and after considering public comments received, has determined the State laws or regulations described in the State's application are at least as stringent as the Federal requirements they substitute.
Before the Operating Administration approves the application, the State must enter into a written agreement with the Operating Administration. At a minimum the written agreement must:
(1) Be executed by the Governor or top-ranking transportation official in the State charged with responsibility for highway construction;
(2) Provide that the State agrees to assume the responsibilities of the Program, as identified by the Operating Administration;
(3) Provide that the State expressly consents to accept Federal court jurisdiction for the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of any responsibility it undertakes for the Program;
(4) Certify that State laws or regulations exist that authorize the State to carry out the responsibilities of the Program;
(5) Certify that State laws or regulations exist that are comparable to FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552), including a provision that any decision regarding the public availability of a document under the State laws or regulations is reviewable by a Court of competent jurisdiction;
(6) Commit the State to maintain the personnel and financial resources necessary to carry out its responsibilities under the Program;
(7) Have a term of not more than 5 years, the term of a State's agreement with the Operating Administration in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 327, or a term ending on December 4, 2027, whichever is sooner; and
(8) Be renewable.
The Operating Administration's execution of the Agreement would constitute approval of the application. A State approved to participate in the Program may further apply the approved alternative environmental review and approval procedures to locally administered projects for up to 25 local governments at the request of those local governments. For such locally administered projects, the State would be responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the approved alternative State procedures are met.
After consultation with the Agencies, CEQ identified criteria the Agencies would use to determine whether the State laws or regulations are at least as stringent as the Federal NEPA requirements. These criteria provide for protection of the environment, provide opportunity for public participation and comment (including access to the documentation necessary to review the potential impact of a project), and ensure consistent review of projects that would otherwise have been covered under NEPA. The legislative and regulatory citations noted are intended to indicate, in general, the basis for the criteria. Based on CEQ's criteria, the Agencies and CEQ propose that to be considered at least as stringent as the Federal NEPA requirements, a State environmental law or regulation, at a minimum, must:
(a) Define the types of actions that normally require an environmental impact assessment, including government-sponsored projects such as those receiving Federal financial assistance or permit approvals. (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 40 CFR 1508.18);
(b) Ensure an early process for determining the scope of the action and issues that need to be addressed, identifying the significant issues, and for the classification of the appropriate environmental impact assessment in accordance with the significance of the likely impacts. For actions that may result in significant impacts on the human environment the scoping process should be an open and public process. (23 U.S.C. 139(e); 40 CFR 1501.3, 1501.4, 1501.7, 1507.3(b), 1508.14, and 1508.25);
(c) Prohibit agencies and non-governmental proponents from taking action concerning the proposal until the environmental impact evaluation is complete when such action would (1) have adverse environmental impacts or (2) limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. (40 CFR 1506.1 and 1506.10(b)).
(d) Protect the integrity and objectivity of the analysis by requiring the agency to take responsibility for the scope and content of the analysis and by preventing conflicts of interest among the parties developing the analysis and the parties with financial or other interest in the outcome of the project. (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(D); 40 CFR 1506.5);
(e) Based on a proposed action's purpose and need, require objective evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (including the alternative of not taking the action) if it may result in significant impacts to the human environment or, for those actions that may not result in significant impacts, consideration of alternatives if they will involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(iii); 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(E); 23 U.S.C. 330(b)(1)(A); 40 CFR 1502.13, 1502.14, and 1508.9);
(f) Require an assessment of the reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a proposed action (and any reasonable alternatives) on the human environment, and a comparison of those potential impacts with existing environmental conditions (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 23 U.S.C. 330(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR 1502.16, 1508.9(b), and 1508.4);
(g) Require the consideration of appropriate mitigation for the impacts associated with a proposal and reasonable alternatives (including avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating the impact over time, and compensating for the impact) (40 CFR 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h), and 1508.20);
(h) Provide for adequate interagency participation, including appropriate coordination and consultation with State, Federal, tribal, and local agencies with jurisdiction by law, special expertise, or an interest with respect to any environmental impact associated with the proposal, and for collaboration that would eliminate duplication of reviews. For actions that may result in significant impacts to the human environment, the process should allow for the development of plans for interagency coordination and public involvement, and the setting of timetables for the review process (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 23 U.S.C. 139(d) and 139(g); 40 CFR 1500.5(e), 1501.6, 1502.25, and part 1503);
(i) Provide an opportunity for public participation and comment that is commensurate with the significance of the proposal's impacts on the human environment, and require public access to the documentation developed during the environmental review and a process to respond to public comments. (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 23 U.S.C. 330(b)(1)(A); FAST Act, Sec. 1309(c)(2)(B)(ii); 40 CFR 1502.19, part 1503, and 1506.6; and E.O. 11514, Sec. 1(b));
(j) Include procedures for the elevation and resolution of interagency disputes prior to a final decision on the proposed project. (23 U.S.C. 139(h); 40 CFR part 1504);
(k) Require, for the conclusion of the process, a concise documentation of findings (for actions that would not
(l) Require the agency to supplement environmental impacts assessments if there are substantial changes in the proposal that are relevant to environmental concerns or significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (23 U.S.C. 330(e)(3); 40 CFR 1502.9); and
(m) Allow for the use of procedures that facilitate process efficiency such as the identification of categories of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment and which have been found to not have such effect with procedures that require the consideration of extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a higher level of analysis, the use of tiering, programmatic approaches, adoption, incorporation by reference, approaches to eliminate duplication with other Federal requirements, and special procedures to address emergency situations (23 U.S.C. 139(b)(3); 40 CFR 1502.20, 1502.21, 1502.25, 1506.2, 1506.3, 1506.4, 1507.3(b)(ii), and 1508.4).
The Agencies propose a section describing the termination date of the Program, the Operating Administration's responsibilities to review each approved State's performance implementing the Program, and the Operating Administration's right to terminate a State's participation in the Program early.
Under FAST Act Section 1309, the Program will terminate 12 years after enactment (December 4, 2027). Until then, the Operating Administration would review each participating State's performance, at least once every 5 years. The Operating Administration would provide public notice and an opportunity for public comment on the review. At the conclusion of the Operating Administration's last review before the expiration of the term, the Operating Administration may extend a State's participation in the Program for an additional term not to exceed 5 years (if this extension ends before December 4, 2027) or it may terminate the State's participation in the Program.
Finally, the Operating Administration could terminate a State's participation in the Program if the Operating Administration, in consultation with the Office of the Secretary and the Chair of CEQ, determines a participating State's performance fails to meet the terms of the written agreement, the requirements of 23 CFR part 778, or 23 U.S.C. 330. Before terminating the State's participation, the Operating Administration would first notify the State and allow 90 days for the State to take corrective action. If the State fails to take corrective action during this time, the Operating Administration may then terminate that State's participation in the Program.
The Agencies propose to revise section 773.117(a)(2) by modifying the current termination time period language to state that the Operating Administration(s) must provide the State no less than 120 days to take corrective actions.
The Agencies propose to add a new section 773.117(a)(3) to include that on the request of the Governor of the State, the Operating Administration(s) shall provide a detailed description of each responsibility in need of corrective action regarding an inadequacy identified by the Operating Administration.
The Agencies propose to revise the heading for 49 CFR part 264 and add a reference to 23 U.S.C. 330 and the Program application procedures in 23 CFR part 778 as applicable to rail projects. This cross-reference would assist potential FRA applicants, State and Federal agencies, and the public.
The Agencies propose to revise the authorities in subpart A—Environmental Procedures to include a reference to 23 U.S.C. 330 and the application procedures in 23 CFR part 778 as applicable to transit projects. This cross-reference would assist potential FTA applicants, State and Federal agencies, and the public.
The Agencies have the authority for this rulemaking action under 49 U.S.C. 322(a), which provides authority to “[a]n officer of the Department of Transportation [to] prescribe regulations to carry out the duties and powers of the officer.” The Secretary delegated this authority to the Agencies' Administrators in 49 CFR 1.81(a)(3), which provides that the authority to prescribe regulations contained in 49 U.S.C. 322(a) is delegated to each Administrator “with respect to statutory provisions for which authority is delegated by other sections in [49 CFR part 1].”
The Agencies will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above and will make such comments available for examination in the docket at the above
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). The Agencies have determined preliminarily that this action would not be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and would not be significant within the meaning of DOT's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11032). This
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Agencies anticipate that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. The Agencies do not have specific data to assess the monetary value of the benefits from the proposed changes because such data does not exist and would be difficult to develop.
This proposed rulemaking would not adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy. This proposed rulemaking sets forth application requirements for the Program, which will result in only minimal costs to Program applicants. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agencies have evaluated the effects of this proposed rule on small entities and anticipate that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000. The proposed rule addresses application requirements for States wishing to participate in the Program. As such, it affects only States, and States are not included in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply, and the Agencies certify that this action would not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the Agencies will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Additionally, the definition of “Federal Mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the Program in accordance with changes made in the Program by the Federal Government.
Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. The Agencies analyzed this proposed action in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and determined that it would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The Agencies have also determined that this proposed action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions. The Agencies invite State and local governments with an interest in this rulemaking to comment on the effect that adoption of specific proposals may have on State or local governments.
The Agencies have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, and believe that it would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
The Agencies have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211,
The DOT's regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities (49 CFR part 17) apply to this program. Accordingly, the Agencies solicit comments on this issue.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988,
Executive Order 12898,
The Agencies have evaluated this proposed rule under the Executive Order, the DOT Order, the FHWA Order, and the FTA Policy Guidance. The Agencies have determined that the proposed application regulations, if finalized, would not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. States participating in the Program must comply with DOT's and the appropriate Agency guidance and policies on environmental justice.
The Agencies have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
The Agencies do not anticipate that this action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for NEPA that establish specific criteria for, and identification of, three classes of actions: those that normally require preparation of an EIS; those that normally require preparation of an EA; and those that are categorically excluded from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). This proposed action qualifies for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20) (promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives) and 771.117(c)(1) (activities that do not lead directly to construction) for FHWA, and 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning and administrative activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction) for FTA. In addition, FRA has determined that this proposed action is not a major FRA action requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment under FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999, as amended by 78 FR 2713, Jan. 14, 2013). The Agencies have evaluated whether the proposed action would involve unusual or extraordinary circumstances and have determined that this proposed action would not involve such circumstances.
Under the Program, a selected State may conduct environmental reviews and make approvals for projects under State environmental laws and regulations instead of NEPA. These State environmental laws and regulations must be at least as stringent as the Federal requirements. As a result, the Agencies find that this proposed rulemaking would not result in significant impacts on the human environment.
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
Environmental protection, Eliminating duplication of environmental reviews pilot program, Highways and roads.
Environmental protection, Surface transportation project delivery program application requirements and termination, Highways and roads.
Environmental protection, Eliminating duplication of environmental reviews pilot program, Railroads.
Environmental protection, Environmental impact and related procedures, Public transportation, Transit.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Agencies propose to amend 23 CFR chapter I and 49 CFR chapters II and VI as follows:
23 U.S.C. 315 and 327; 49 CFR 1.81(a)(4)-(6); 49 CFR 1.85.
(a) * * *
(2) The Operating Administration(s) may not terminate a State's participation without providing the State with notification of the noncompliance issue that could give rise to the termination, and without affording the State an opportunity to take corrective action to address the noncompliance issue. The Operating Administration(s) must provide the State a period of no less than 120 days to take corrective actions. The Operating Administration(s) is responsible for making the final decision on whether the corrective action is satisfactory.
(3) On the request of the Governor of the State, the Operating Administration(s) shall provide a detailed description of each responsibility in need of corrective action regarding an inadequacy identified by the Operating Administration(s).
23 U.S.C. 330; 49 CFR 1.81.
The purpose of this part is to establish the requirements for a State to participate in the pilot program for eliminating duplication of environmental reviews (“Program”) under 23 U.S.C. 330. This Program allows States to conduct environmental reviews and make approvals for projects
(a)
(1) Act by and through the Governor or top-ranking State transportation official who is charged with responsibility for highway construction;
(2) Expressly consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of U.S. District Courts for compliance, discharge, and enforcement of any responsibility under this Program;
(3) Have previously assumed the responsibilities of the Secretary under 23 U.S.C. 327 related to environmental review, consultation, or other actions required under certain Federal environmental laws; and
(4) Identify laws authorizing the State to take the actions necessary to carry out the equivalent environmental review and approval procedures under State laws and regulations.
(b)
(i) NEPA;
(ii) Procedures governing the implementation of NEPA and related procedural laws under the authority of the Secretary, including 23 U.S.C. 109, 128, and 139; and
(iii) Related regulations and Executive Orders.
(2) Compliance with State environmental laws and regulations may not serve as a substitute for the Secretary's responsibilities regarding compliance with any other Federal environmental laws.
(a) To apply to participate in the Program, a State must submit an application to the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, or Federal Transit Administration, as appropriate.
(b) Each application submitted must contain the following information:
(1) A full and complete description of the alternative environmental review and approval procedures the State proposes, including:
(i) The procedures the State uses to engage the public and consider alternatives to the proposed action; and
(ii) The extent to which the State considers environmental consequences or impacts on resources potentially impacted by the proposed actions (such as air, water, or species).
(2) Each Federal environmental requirement the State is seeking to substitute, within the limitations of § 778.103(b);
(3) Each State environmental law and regulation the State intends to substitute for a Federal environmental requirement, within the limitations of § 778.103(b);
(4) A detailed explanation (with supporting documentation incorporated by reference) of the basis for concluding the State environmental law or regulation intended to substitute for a Federal environmental requirement is at least as stringent as that Federal requirement;
(5) A description of the projects or classes of projects for which the State anticipates exercising the authority that may be granted under the Program;
(6) Verification that the State has the financial and personnel resources necessary to fulfill its obligations under the Program;
(7) Evidence that the State has sought public comments on its application prior to the submittal and the State's response to any comments it received;
(8) A point of contact for questions regarding the application and a point of contact regarding potential implementation of the Program (if different);
(9) Certification and explanation by the State's Attorney General or other State official legally empowered by State law to issue legal opinions that bind the State that the State has legal authority to enter into the Program, and that the State consents to exclusive Federal court jurisdiction for the compliance, discharge, and enforcement of any responsibility under this Program;
(10) Certification by the State's Attorney General or other State official legally empowered by State law to issue legal opinions that bind the State that the State has laws that are comparable to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (FOIA), including laws that allow for any decision regarding the public availability of a document under those laws to be reviewed by a court of competent jurisdiction; and
(11) The State Governor's (or in the case of the District of Columbia, the Mayor's) or the State's top ranking transportation official's signature approving the application.
(a) The Operating Administration must solicit public comments on the application and must consider comments received before making a decision to approve or disapprove the application. Materials made available for this public review must include the State's application and may include additional supporting materials.
(b) After receiving an application Operating Administration deems complete, the Operating Administration must make a decision on whether to approve or disapprove the application within 120 calendar days. The Operating Administration must transmit the decision in writing to the State with a statement explaining the decision.
(c) The Operating Administration will approve an application only if it determines the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The State is party to an agreement with the Operating Administration under 23 U.S.C. 327;
(2) The Operating Administration has determined, after considering any public comments received, the State has the capacity, including financial and personnel, to undertake the alternative environmental review and approval procedures; and
(3) The Operating Administration, in consultation with the Office of the Secretary with the concurrence of the Chair of CEQ, and after considering public comments received, has determined that the State environmental laws and regulations described in the State's application are at least as stringent as the Federal requirements for which they substitute.
(d) The State must enter into a written agreement with the Operating Administration.
(e) The written agreement must:
(1) Be executed by the Governor or top-ranking transportation official in the State charged with responsibility for highway construction;
(2) Provide that the State agrees to assume the responsibilities of the Program, as identified by the Operating Administration;
(3) Provide that the State expressly consents to accept Federal court jurisdiction for the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of any responsibility undertaken as part of the Program;
(4) Certify that State laws and regulations exist that authorize the State to carry out the responsibilities of the Program;
(5) Certify that State laws and regulations exist that are comparable to FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552), including a provision that any decision regarding the public availability of a document under the State laws and regulations is reviewable by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(6) Contain a commitment that the State will maintain the personnel and financial resources necessary to carry
(7) Have a term of not more than 5 years, the term of a State's agreement with the Operating Administration in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 327, or a term ending on December 4, 2027, whichever is sooner; and
(8) Be renewable.
(f) The State must execute the agreement before the Operating Administration executes the agreement and approves the application. The Operating Administration's execution of the agreement will constitute approval of the application.
(g) The agreement may be renewed at the end of its term, but may not extend beyond December 4, 2027.
(h) A State approved to participate in the Program may further apply the approved alternative environmental review and approval procedures to locally administered projects, for up to 25 local governments at the request of those local governments. For such locally administered projects, the State shall be responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the approved alternative State procedures are met.
To be considered at least as stringent as a Federal requirement under this Program, the State laws and regulations, must, at a minimum:
(a) Define the types of actions that normally require an environmental impact assessment, including government-sponsored projects such as those receiving Federal financial assistance or permit approvals. (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 40 CFR 1508.18);
(b) Ensure an early process for determining the scope of the action and issues that need to be addressed, identifying the significant issues, and for the classification of the appropriate environmental impact assessment in accordance with the significance of the likely impacts. For actions that may result in significant impacts on the human environment the scoping process should be an open and public process. (23 U.S.C. 139(e); 40 CFR 1501.3, 1501.4, 1501.7, 1507.3(b), 1508.14, and 1508.25);
(c) Prohibit agencies and non-governmental proponents from taking action concerning the proposal until the environmental impact evaluation is complete when such action would:
(1) Have adverse environmental impacts or
(2) Limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. (40 CFR 1506.1 and 1506.10(b)).
(d) Protect the integrity and objectivity of the analysis by requiring the agency to take responsibility for the scope and content of the analysis and by preventing conflicts of interest among the parties developing the analysis and the parties with financial or other interest in the outcome of the project. (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(D); 40 CFR 1506.5);
(e) Based on a proposed action's purpose and need, require objective evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (including the alternative of not taking the action) if it may result in significant impacts to the human environment or, for those actions that may not result in significant impacts, consideration of alternatives if they will involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(iii); 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(E); 23 U.S.C. 330(b)(1)(A); 40 CFR 1502.13, 1502.14, and 1508.9);
(f) Require an assessment of the reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a proposed action (and any reasonable alternatives) on the human environment, and a comparison of those potential impacts with existing environmental conditions (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 23 U.S.C. 330(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR 1502.16, 1508.9(b), and 1508.4);
(g) Require the consideration of appropriate mitigation for the impacts associated with a proposal and reasonable alternatives (including avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating the impact over time, and compensating for the impact) (40 CFR 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h), and 1508.20);
(h) Provide for adequate interagency participation, including appropriate coordination and consultation with State, Federal, tribal, and local agencies with jurisdiction by law, special expertise, or an interest with respect to any environmental impact associated with the proposal, and for collaboration that would eliminate duplication of reviews For actions that may result in significant impacts to the human environment, the process should allow for the development of plans for interagency coordination and public involvement, and the setting of timetables for the review process (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 23 U.S.C. 139(d) and 139(g); 40 CFR 1500.5(e), 1501.6, 1502.25, and part 1503);
(i) Provide an opportunity for public participation and comment that is commensurate with the significance of the proposal's impacts on the human environment, and require public access to the documentation developed during the environmental review and a process to respond to public comments (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 23 U.S.C. 330(b)(1)(A); FAST Act, Sec. 1309(c)(2)(B)(ii); 40 CFR 1502.19, part 1503, and 1506.6; and E.O. 11514, Sec. 1(b));
(j) Include procedures for the elevation and resolution of interagency disputes prior to a final decision on the proposed project (23 U.S.C. 139(h); 40 CFR part 1504);
(k) Require, for the conclusion of the process, a concise documentation of findings (for actions that would not likely result in significant impacts to the human environment) or, for actions that may result in significant impacts, a concise record that states the agency decision that:
(i) Identifies all alternatives considered (specifying which were environmentally preferable),
(ii) Identifies and discusses all factors that were balanced by the agency in making its decision and states how those considerations entered into the decision,
(iii) States whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted, and if not, why they were not; and
(iv) Describes the monitoring and enforcement program that will be adopted where applicable for any mitigation (40 CFR 1501.4 and 1505.2).
(l) Require the agency to supplement environmental impact assessments if there are substantial changes in the proposal that are relevant to environmental concerns or significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. (23 U.S.C. 330(e)(3); 40 CFR 1502.9); and
(m) Allow for the use of procedures that facilitate process efficiency such as the identification of categories of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment and which have been found to not have such effect with procedures that require the consideration of extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a higher level of analysis, the use of tiering, programmatic approaches, adoption, incorporation by reference, approaches to eliminate duplication with other Federal requirements, and special procedures to address emergency situations (23 U.S.C. 139(b)(3); 40 CFR 1502.20, 1502.21, 1502.25, 1506.2, 1506.3, 1506.4, 1507.3(b)(ii), and 1508.4).
(a)
(b)
(1) The Operating Administration must provide notice and an opportunity for public comment during the review.
(2) At the conclusion of its last review prior to the expiration of the term, the Operating Administration may extend a State's participation in the Program for an additional term of not more than 5 years (as long as such term does not extend beyond the termination date of the Program) or terminate the State's participation in the Program.
(c)
(2) After notifying the State of its determination under paragraph (c)(1), the Operating Administration must provide the State a maximum of 90 days to take the appropriate corrective action. If the State fails to take such corrective action, the Operating Administration may terminate the State's participation in the Program.
23 U.S.C. 327; 49 CFR 1.81; 23 U.S.C. 330.
The procedures for complying with the surface transportation project delivery program application requirements and termination are set forth in part 773 of title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The procedures for participating in and complying with the program for eliminating duplication of environmental reviews are set forth in part 778 of title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
42 U.S.C. 4321
The procedures for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
National Indian Gaming Commission.
Proposed rule.
The National Indian Gaming Commission proposes to amend the minimum technical standards for Class II gaming systems and equipment. The proposed rule would amend regulations that describe how tribal governments, tribal gaming regulatory authorities, and tribal gaming operations comply with the technical standards. In particular, the proposed rule amends the requirement that gaming systems manufactured before November 10, 2008, be modified to meet standards applicable to gaming systems manufactured on or after November 10, 2008, or be removed from the gaming floor by November 10, 2018. The Commission proposes this action to assist tribal governments, tribal gaming regulatory authorities, and operations in ensuring the integrity and security of Class II games and gaming revenue through minimum technical standards for Class II gaming systems and equipment.
The agency must receive comments on or before November 13, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Austin Badger, National Indian Gaming Commission; Telephone: 202-632-7003.
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.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
When implemented in 2008, the part 547 technical standards introduced several new requirements for Class II gaming systems designed to protect the security and integrity of Class II gaming systems and tribal operations. The Commission understood, however, that some existing Class II gaming systems might not meet all of the requirements of the technical standards. Therefore, to avoid any potentially significant economic and practical consequences of requiring immediate compliance, the Commission implemented a five year sunset provision which allowed eligible gaming systems manufactured before November 10, 2008 (2008 Systems) to remain on the gaming floor. The Commission believed that a five year period was sufficient for market forces to move equipment toward compliance with the standards applicable to gaming systems manufactured on or after November 10, 2008.
On September 21, 2012, the NIGC published a final rule in the
Now, with the November 10, 2018, sunset approaching, the Commission believed it appropriate to include the 2008 Systems and associated sunset provision of the part 547 technical standards as a topic for consultation. The topic was therefore included in a November 22, 2016, letter to tribal leaders introducing the Commission's 2017 consultation series.
On March 23, 2017, in Tulsa, OK, and April 12, 2017, in San Diego, CA, the NIGC consulted on the 2008 Systems and associated sunset provision of part 547. The Commission also solicited written comments through May 31, 2017. In addition, NIGC staff attended several National Indian Gaming Association Class II Subcommittee meetings. The consultations and meetings, combined with the written comments, proved invaluable in the development of a discussion draft. On June 14, 2017, the Commission issued a discussion draft which, among other proposed amendments, proposed removing the November 10, 2018, sunset for 2008 Systems. Additional written comments responsive to the discussion draft were solicited through July 15, 2017.
Written comments received after the issuance of the discussion draft were generally supportive of the proposed removal of the November 10, 2018, sunset for 2008 Systems. Comments also indicated, however, several specific remaining areas of concern. The Commission developed the proposed rule after considering the comments received.
Some commenters questioned the Commission's authority to implement technical standards and its authority to enforce the standards. IGRA gives the Commission the authority to adopt these technical standards. Congress was expressly concerned that gaming under IGRA be “conducted fairly and honestly by both the operator and players” and “to ensure that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation.” 25 U.S.C. 2702(2). The technical standards are designed to ensure that these concerns are addressed. These standards implement the authority granted the NIGC to monitor, inspect, and examine Class II gaming, 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(1)-(4), and to promulgate such regulations as it deems appropriate to implement the provisions of IGRA. 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10). The Commission further reiterates that this rule does not classify games for purposes of IGRA. The rule assumes that the games played are Class II games. This rule establishes a process for ensuring the integrity and security of Class II games and an accounting of Class II revenue.
Many commenters requested that the November 10, 2018, sunset for 2008 Systems be removed. Commenters suggested that the existing sunset provision could not be justified because there has been no evidence that 2008 Systems represent a risk to the integrity and security of Class II gaming. Commenters noted that 2008 Systems appear to be protected by 26 out of 28 technical standards identified by commenters as “high risk.” In addition, commenters suggested that, even assuming additional risks are associated with 2008 Systems, such risks are mitigated by tribal gaming regulatory authorities (TGRAs) through internal control standards.
The Commission agrees that the 2008 sunset can be removed. The Commission disagrees, however, that evidence of risk forms the sole legal justification for the technical standards. The technical standards are intended to ensure the integrity and security of Class II gaming and the accountability of Class II gaming revenue. The technical standards include minimum requirements that the Commission believes, in its judgment, are appropriate and consistent with its Federal regulatory oversight mission. The Commission has, however, determined that removal of the sunset provision is justified provided that 2008 Systems are subject to additional annual review by TGRAs.
Commenters also suggested that the sunset provision threatens significant economic harm and the continued success and viability of the Class II gaming industry. Commenters suggested that the sunset provision is an unnecessary cost burden on manufacturers and tribes. Commenters further suggested that the sunset provision will cause tribes to lose leverage in compact negotiations with states.
The Commission understands the commenters' concerns over the economic impact of removing non-compliant Class II gaming systems from the gaming floor. The Commission notes, however, that part 547 as originally enacted and as amended only requires removal if the games are not made compliant with the testing standards for newer systems set forth in the regulation. The regulation initially provided the industry with five years to modify or replace 2008 Systems. The Commission subsequently granted an additional five years to bring the systems into compliance with the standards for newer systems. The Commission has now determined that removal of the sunset provision is justified provided that 2008 Systems are subject to additional annual review by the TGRA.
Commenters suggested that the sunset provision is retroactive and that IGRA does not authorize the NIGC to promulgate regulations that have retroactive effect. The Commission disagrees that the proposed amendments are retroactive. The proposed amendments do not alter the
A commenter suggested extending the sunset provision indefinitely, subject to the authority of TGRAs. A commenter submitted proposed language implementing an annual audit requirement for 2008 Systems. The Commission's subsequent discussion draft partially incorporated this recommendation.
The discussion draft required TGRAs to: “Annually review the Class II gaming system, its current components, and the associated testing laboratory reports to determine whether the Class II gaming system may be approved pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. The TGRA shall make a finding identifying the Class II gaming systems reviewed, the Class II gaming systems subsequently approved pursuant to paragraph (b), and, for Class II gaming systems that cannot be approved pursuant to paragraph (b), the modifications necessary for such approval. The TGRA shall transmit its findings to the Commission within 120 days of the gaming operation's fiscal year end.” Commenters suggested that the NIGC has provided no compelling reason to change the existing reporting requirements. Commenters further suggested that the annual reporting requirement appears to be unintentionally applicable to all Class II gaming systems.
Although the requirement does impose an additional requirement on TGRAs, the Commission believes that removal of the sunset provision warrants annual review specific to 2008 Systems. In addition, the annual reporting requirement is contained within § 547.5(a) and is therefore applicable only to 2008 Systems. The Commission has, however, revised and clarified the annual review and reporting procedures in the proposed rule to reduce the perceived burden on TGRAs. Pursuant to this proposed rule, TGRAs are not required to transmit its findings, but rather must maintain records and make them available to NIGC staff upon request.
The discussion draft further provided that “A TGRA may not permit the use of any Class II gaming system manufactured before November 10, 2008 in a tribal gaming operation unless:” it meets requirements applicable to 2008 Systems. Discussion Draft § 547.5(a)(3) provides that “If the Class II gaming system is subsequently approved pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, this paragraph (a) [2008 Systems] no longer applies.” Commenters suggested that the Discussion Draft could be misinterpreted to provide that all Class II gaming systems manufactured prior to November 10, 2008, including those that are now compliant with § 547.5(b), would be subject to the 2008 System provisions in § 547.5(a). Commenters further suggested that approving a 2008 System pursuant to § 547.5(b) requires a 2008 System to be resubmitted to a testing lab for full re-certification and/or requires TGRAs to make technical determinations.
The Commission believes that discussion draft § 547.5(a)(3) is clear that Class II gaming systems approved pursuant to § 547.5(b) are no longer 2008 Systems. The Commission has, however, clarified in the proposed rule that the use of the term “approved” is intended to reference TGRA approval based on review of existing testing lab reports for all current components of the Class II gaming system.
Finally, the discussion draft Discussion Draft § 547.5(a)(1)(viii) provides that “All player interfaces of the Class II gaming system have a date of manufacture before November 10, 2008.” Commenters suggested that the requirement that all player interfaces of 2008 Systems have a date of manufacture before November 10, 2008, was a new requirement. Commenters further suggested that this requirement was unnecessary and would prevent use of newer player interfaces with 2008 Systems, contrary to provisions encouraging 2008 Systems to be modified to move towards compliance with standards for newer systems.
Although not included in the 2012 amendment to part 547, the date of manufacture requirement is not entirely new. The 2008 System provisions were originally intended to apply only to systems in play or manufactured by November 10, 2008. 73 FR 60508, 60510. Pursuant to the 2008 regulations, § 547.4(a)(7) required “the supplier of any player interface to designate with a permanently affixed label each player interface with an identifying number and the date of manufacture or a statement that the date of manufacture was on or before the effective date of this part. The tribal gaming regulatory authority shall also require the supplier to provide a written declaration or affidavit affirming that the date of manufacture was on or before November 10, 2008.” 73 FR 60508, 60527 (October 10, 2008). The Commission agrees, however, that the date of manufacture requirement included in the discussion draft could be interpreted as preventing the use of newer player interfaces and has therefore removed the requirement from the proposed rule.
Discussion draft § 547.5(c)(2)(ii) provided that “The testing laboratory tests the submission to the standards established by: (A) This part; (B) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and (C) The TGRA.” Commenters suggested that the new requirement that modifications to 2008 Systems be tested to the standards applicable to newer systems is unnecessary and will only result in additional costs with no practical benefit. Commenters noted that laboratory reports are currently not required for all modifications to 2008 Systems, thereby providing TGRAs with greater flexibility and control over such modifications. Commenters suggested that this provision will force TGRAs to use the emergency modification procedures to avoid testing delays.
The Commission disagrees that the requirement that all modifications be tested to the standards applicable to newer systems is unnecessary. The current and proposed regulations require the TGRA to determine, among other requirements, whether a modification will maintain or advance the Class II gaming system's compliance with the technical standards. The new requirement ensures that TGRAs are provided with the information needed for the TGRA to make such a determination. In addition, the Commission believes that TGRAs will continue to utilize the emergency modification provisions for their intended purpose.
Discussion draft § 547.5(g) provided that “The Commission may use the information derived therefrom for any lawful purpose including, without limitation, to monitor the use of Class II gaming systems, to assess the effectiveness of the standards required by this Part, and to inform future amendments to this Part. The Commission will only make available for public review records or portions of records subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a; or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2716(a).” Commenters expressed reluctance to expose sensitive testing and compliance records to possible public disclosure. Commenters suggested that records only be available for review on site by NIGC staff.
The Commission agrees that sensitive testing and compliance records should not be disclosed. As cited in the
The proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local government agencies or geographic regions. Nor will the proposed rule have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the enterprises, to compete with foreign based enterprises.
The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1).
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that the proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the proposed rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
The Commission has determined that the proposed rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321,
The information collection requirements contained in this rule were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 44 U.S.C. 3501
Gambling, Indian—lands, Indian—tribal government, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, for reasons stated in the preamble, 25 CFR part 547 is proposed to be amended as follows:
25 U.S.C. 2706(b).
(a)
(i) The Class II gaming system software that affects the play of the Class II game, together with the signature verification required by § 547.8(f) was submitted to a testing laboratory within 120 days after November 10, 2008, or October 22, 2012;
(ii) The testing laboratory tested the submission to the standards established by § 547.8(b), § 547.8(f), and § 547.14;
(iii) The testing laboratory provided the TGRA with a formal written report setting forth and certifying to the findings and conclusions of the test;
(iv) The TGRA made a finding, in the form of a certificate provided to the supplier or manufacturer of the Class II gaming system, that the Class II gaming system is compliant with § 547.8(b), § 547.8(f), and § 547.14;
(v) The Class II gaming system is only used as approved by the TGRA and the TGRA transmitted its notice of that approval, identifying the Class II gaming system and its components, to the Commission;
(vi) Remote communications with the Class II gaming system are only allowed if authorized by the TGRA; and
(vii) Player interfaces of the Class II gaming system exhibit information consistent with § 547.7(d) and any other information required by the TGRA.
(2) For so long as a Class II gaming system is made available for use at any tribal gaming operation pursuant to this paragraph (a) the TGRA shall:
(i) Retain copies of the testing laboratory's report, the TGRA's compliance certificate, and the TGRA's approval of the use of the Class II gaming system;
(ii) Maintain records identifying the Class II gaming system and its current components; and
(iii) Annually review the testing laboratory reports associated with the Class II gaming system and its current components to determine whether the Class II gaming system may be approved pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section. The TGRA shall make a finding identifying the Class II gaming systems reviewed, the Class II gaming systems subsequently approved pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(v), and, for Class II gaming systems that cannot be approved pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(v), the components of the Class II gaming system preventing such approval.
(3) If the Class II gaming system is subsequently approved by the TGRA pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(v) as compliant with paragraph (b) of this section, this paragraph (a) no longer applies.
(b)
(i) The Class II gaming system has been submitted to a testing laboratory;
(ii) The testing laboratory tests the submission to the standards established by:
(A) This part;
(B) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and
(C) The TGRA;
(iii) The testing laboratory provides a formal written report to the party making the submission, setting forth and certifying its findings and conclusions, and noting compliance with any standard established by the TGRA pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section;
(iv) The testing laboratory's written report confirms that the operation of a player interface prototype has been
(v) Following receipt of the testing laboratory's report, the TGRA makes a finding that the Class II gaming system conforms to the standards established by:
(A) This part;
(B) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and
(C) The TGRA.
(2) For so long as a Class II gaming system is made available for use at any tribal gaming operation pursuant to this paragraph (b) the TGRA shall:
(i) Retain a copy of the testing laboratory's report; and
(ii) Maintain records identifying the Class II gaming system and its current components.
(c)
(2) A TGRA may not permit the modification of any Class II gaming system in a tribal gaming operation unless:
(i) The Class II gaming system modification has been submitted to a testing laboratory;
(ii) The testing laboratory tests the submission to the standards established by:
(A) This part;
(B) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and
(C) The TGRA;
(iii) The testing laboratory provides a formal written report to the party making the submission, setting forth and certifying its findings and conclusions, and noting compliance with any standard established by the TGRA pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C) of this section;
(iv) Following receipt of the testing laboratory's report, the TGRA makes a finding that the:
(A) The modification will maintain or advance the Class II gaming system's compliance with this part and any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter; and
(B) The modification will not detract from, compromise or prejudice the proper functioning, security, or integrity of the Class II gaming system;
(3) If a TGRA authorizes a component modification under this paragraph, it must maintain a record of the modification and a copy of the testing laboratory report so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the modification remains available to the public for play.
(d)
(i) Necessary to correct a problem affecting the fairness, security, or integrity of a game or accounting system or any cashless system, or voucher system; or
(ii) Unrelated to game play, an accounting system, a cashless system, or a voucher system.
(2) If a TGRA authorizes modified components to be made available for play or use without prior testing laboratory review, the TGRA must thereafter require the hardware or software manufacturer to:
(i) Immediately advise other users of the same components of the importance and availability of the update;
(ii) Immediately submit the new or modified components to a testing laboratory for testing and verification of compliance with this part and any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and
(iii) Immediately provide the TGRA with a software signature verification tool meeting the requirements of § 547.8(f) for any new or modified software component.
(3) If a TGRA authorizes a component modification under this paragraph, it must maintain a record of the modification and a copy of the testing laboratory report so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the modification remains available to the public for play.
(e)
(1) The tribal government determines that the organization sponsoring the gaming operation is a charitable organization;
(2) All proceeds of the charitable gaming operation are for the benefit of the charitable organization;
(3) The TGRA permits the charitable organization to be exempt from this part;
(4) The charitable gaming operation is operated wholly by the charitable organization's employees or volunteers; and
(5) The annual gross gaming revenue of the charitable gaming operation does not exceed $3,000,000.
(f)
(i) It demonstrates its integrity, independence and financial stability to the TGRA.
(ii) It demonstrates its technical skill and capability to the TGRA.
(iii) If the testing laboratory is owned or operated by, or affiliated with, a tribe, it must be independent from the manufacturer and gaming operator for whom it is providing the testing, evaluating, and reporting functions required by this section.
(iv) The TGRA:
(A) Makes a suitability determination of the testing laboratory based upon standards no less stringent than those set out in § 533.6(b)(1)(ii) through (v) of this chapter and based upon no less information than that required by § 537.1 of this chapter, or
(B) Accepts, in its discretion, a determination of suitability for the testing laboratory made by any other gaming regulatory authority in the United States.
(v) After reviewing the suitability determination and the information provided by the testing laboratory, the TGRA determines that the testing laboratory is qualified to test and evaluate Class II gaming systems.
(2) The TGRA must:
(i) Maintain a record of all determinations made pursuant to paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) and (f)(1)(iv) of this section for a minimum of three years.
(ii) Place the testing laboratory under a continuing obligation to notify it of any adverse regulatory action in any jurisdiction where the testing laboratory conducts business.
(iii) Require the testing laboratory to provide notice of any material changes to the information provided to the TGRA.
(g)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations to update and streamline the public approval requirement provided in section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code applicable to tax-exempt private activity bonds issued by State and local governments. The proposed regulations would update the existing regulations on the public approval requirement to reflect statutory changes, to streamline the public approval process, and to reduce burden on State and local governments that issue tax-exempt private activity bonds. This document also withdraws two previous notices of proposed rulemaking on this topic. The proposed regulations affect State and local governments that issue tax-exempt private activity bonds.
Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by December 27, 2017.
Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-128841-07), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-128841-07), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Spence Hanemann at (202) 317-6980; concerning submissions of comments and requesting a hearing, Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under OMB Control Number 1545-2185 in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). The collection of information in this proposed regulation is the requirement in § 1.147(f)-1 that certain information be contained in a public notice or public approval and, consequently, disclosed to the public. This information is required to meet the statutory public approval requirement provided in section 147(f). The likely respondents are the governmental units required to approve an issue of private activity bonds under section 147(f).
Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by November 27, 2017.
Comments are specifically requested concerning:
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the IRS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information;
How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced;
How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code) and 26 CFR part 5f under section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (the 1954 Code). In the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Public Law 97-248, 96 Stat. 324, Congress added section 103(k) to the 1954 Code to impose a public approval requirement on tax-exempt industrial development bonds. On May 11, 1983, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS published in the
In the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (1986 Tax Act), Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, Congress reorganized the tax-exempt bond provisions and carried forward the public approval requirement of section 103(k) of the 1954 Code in expanded form in section 147(f) of the Code. In section 147(f), Congress extended the public approval requirement to apply to all types of tax-exempt private activity bonds, as provided in section 141(e). The legislative history of the 1986 Tax Act indicates that “[t]he conferees intend that, to the extent not amended, all principles of present law continue to apply under the reorganized provisions.” H.R. Rep. No. 99-841, at II-686 (1986) (Conf. Rep.). Thus, the Existing Regulations in § 5f.103-2 remain in effect.
On September 9, 2008, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a
In general, pursuant to section 103 of the Code, interest received by investors on eligible State and local bonds is tax-exempt for Federal income tax purposes. Interest on private activity bonds qualifies for this tax-exempt treatment only if the bonds meet the requirements for “qualified bonds” as defined in section 141(e) and other applicable requirements provided in section 103. Section 141(e) of the Code requires, among other things, that qualified bonds meet the public approval requirement of section 147(f).
The Proposed Regulations would update the Existing Regulations to address subsequent statutory changes and to streamline the public approval process. The Proposed Regulations provide greater flexibility to State and local governments with respect to the public approval process to reduce administrative burdens associated with the public approval requirement. The Proposed Regulations recognize advances in technology and electronic communication that may facilitate more streamlined procedures for providing reasonable public notice of a public hearing.
The 2008 Proposed Regulations proposed to update, clarify, and simplify discrete aspects of the Existing Regulations regarding the public approval requirement. The 2008 Proposed Regulations focused on the scope, information content, methods, and timing for the public approval process, and generally did not focus on the governmental entities from which public approval is required. Overall, the public comments on the 2008 Proposed Regulations were favorable.
The Proposed Regulations generally incorporate the amendments proposed in the 2008 Proposed Regulations with modifications in response to the public comments. One comment focused on the structure of the 2008 Proposed Regulations. The 2008 Proposed Regulations would have revised the Existing Regulations by amending existing rules and adding new rules. The 2008 Proposed Regulations further provided that the Existing Regulations would remain in effect to the extent not inconsistent with the final version of the 2008 Proposed Regulations. Commenters expressed concern about potential confusion over two distinct and partially inconsistent regulation sections governing the public approval requirement. The Treasury Department and the IRS understand this concern. Accordingly, the Proposed Regulations consolidate the guidance in the Existing Regulations and the 2008 Proposed Regulations, with modifications in response to the public comments and other recent developments, into new proposed guidance and provide a further opportunity for public comment.
The Treasury Department and the IRS also received numerous comments regarding the level of specificity of information required to be contained in reasonable public notice of a public hearing or a public approval. Generally, the 2008 Proposed Regulations proposed to allow the issuer to provide streamlined information about projects to be financed, and the Existing Regulations require a greater level of specificity of information about such projects. The 2008 Proposed Regulations also proposed to afford issuers more flexibility regarding the effect of post-issuance changes from the reasonably expected facts provided in the reasonable public notice or public approval. Commenters expressed differing views on whether these proposed amendments in the 2008 Proposed Regulations should be adopted. Commenters in favor of these amendments generally applauded the reduced burden that issuers would bear under the 2008 Proposed Regulations and suggested ways in which that burden could be reduced further. Commenters opposed to these amendments generally argued that reducing the amount of public information would limit the public's ability to approve or oppose on an informed basis new private activity bonds and proposed projects to be financed. The legislative history of the public approval requirement emphasizes the importance of “a reasonable opportunity for persons with differing views on both issuance of the bonds and the location and nature of the proposed facility to be heard.” S. Rep. No. 97-494, at 171 (1982). With respect to these proposed amendments, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the information that would have been required by the 2008 Proposed Regulations is sufficient to permit the public to evaluate the merits of both the issuance of the bonds and the location and nature of the financed facility. Thus, the burden imposed by the Existing Regulations may be reduced as provided in the 2008 Proposed Regulations without significantly impairing the public's consideration of new private activity bonds. Accordingly, the Proposed Regulations generally retain the streamlined information and post-issuance flexibility proposed in the 2008 Proposed Regulations and provide for additional post-issuance flexibility. (See section 6 of this Explanation of Provisions.)
Commenters also provided differing views on the amendments in the 2008 Proposed Regulations that proposed changes to the procedures for providing reasonable public notice of a public hearing. The Existing Regulations generally permit an issuer to publicize notice by newspaper, radio, or television, and presume notice to be reasonable if published at least 14 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The 2008 Proposed Regulations proposed to expand the permitted methods of providing public notice to include notice by newspaper, radio, television, Web site, or other permitted methods of giving public notice under State law, and would have shortened the presumptively reasonable notice period to seven days in advance of the hearing. Commenters in favor of these amendments generally stated that the proposed amendments would ease the burden of providing the public notice. Commenters opposed to these amendments generally expressed concern that seven days' notice of a public hearing would not provide the public sufficient time to make an informed decision and to make arrangements to be present at the hearing. The legislative history of TEFRA indicates that Congress expected notice to be published no fewer than 14 days before the scheduled date of the hearing.
Section 147(f) generally requires that both the governmental unit that issues the bonds (or on behalf of which the bonds are issued) and a governmental unit with jurisdiction over the location of the financed project approve an issue of private activity bonds (and the approvals are referred to as the issuer approval and the host approval, respectively). The Proposed Regulations generally carry forward the rules on issuer approval and host approval from the Existing Regulations, with limited revisions to address statutory changes that affect the application of these rules to certain types of private activity bonds. Thus, for example, the Proposed Regulations include guidance to address subsequent statutory changes in section 147(f)(3) and (4) that added special provisions regarding the issuer approval and host approval requirements for certain financings involving airports, high-speed rail facilities, qualified scholarship funding corporations, and volunteer fire departments.
The 1986 Tax Act extended the public approval requirement beyond the traditional, facility-focused industrial development bonds subject to the requirement under the 1954 Code to include certain special types of financings that are not facility-specific, including “qualified mortgage bonds” as defined in section 143(a), “qualified veterans' mortgage bonds” as defined in section 143(b), “qualified student loan bonds” as defined in section 144(b), and “qualified 501(c)(3) bonds” as defined in section 145. For these types of bonds, obtaining a host approval may be impractical or unworkable. For example, for qualified mortgage bonds, the locations of many of the homes to be financed with qualified mortgage loans generally are unknown at the time of issuance of the bonds and thus it may be difficult to identify appropriate governmental units to provide host approval. Moreover, for qualified student loan bonds and for qualified 501(c)(3) bonds used to finance working capital expenditures, the application of the host approval requirement is unworkable because the assets and expenditures financed have no physical location. In recognition of the practical difficulties faced by issuers of these types of bonds under the Existing Regulations, the Proposed Regulations provide that no host approval is necessary for mortgage revenue bonds (defined as qualified mortgage bonds, qualified veterans' mortgage bonds, and certain refundings of bonds issued to finance mortgages of owner-occupied residences under the law prior to enactment of section 143), qualified student loan bonds, or qualified 501(c)(3) bonds used to finance working capital expenditures.
The Existing Regulations generally provide that an applicable elected representative of the approving governmental unit may approve an issue following a public hearing for which there was reasonable public notice. The Existing Regulations provide guidance on permitted methods for giving reasonable public notice and holding public hearings. The Proposed Regulations would expand these methods to provide greater flexibility to State and local governments for providing reasonable public notice.
The Existing Regulations provide generally that reasonable public notice must be published in a newspaper of general circulation available to residents of the relevant locality or announced by radio or television broadcast to those residents. The Proposed Regulations would expand the permitted methods of providing reasonable public notice to provide greater flexibility and to recognize advances in technology and electronic communications. Thus, the Proposed Regulations would allow reasonable public notice by newspaper publication, radio or television broadcast, postings on a governmental unit's public Web site, or alternative methods permitted under a general State law for public notices for public hearings of a governmental unit. The Treasury Department and the IRS solicit comment on other possible methods of providing reasonable public notice to foster flexibility and to reduce administrative burdens.
The Existing Regulations generally require that the reasonable public notice and the public approval contain the following information: A general, functional description of the type and use of the facility to be financed; the maximum aggregate face amount of the bonds to be issued for the facility; the initial owner, operator, or manager of the facility; and the location of the facility by street address or, if none, by a general description designed to inform readers of the specific location. The required level of specificity of information for the public approval process under the Existing Regulations has proven to be unduly limiting and burdensome in certain respects. The Proposed Regulations generally retain the requirements that information (public approval information) be provided for the public approval process but refine the required public approval information to reduce burden and enhance flexibility.
Initially, the Existing Regulations focus on an individual “facility” as the unit of financed property for which the issuer must provide the relevant information. The definition of “facility” in the Existing Regulations includes facilities on multiple tracts of land only if the facilities are used in an integrated operation. Whether facilities are part of an “integrated operation” has proven difficult to determine.
The Proposed Regulations use the term “project” in lieu of the term “facility” because “project” more clearly indicates that financed property may consist of multiple buildings and multiple sites. The Proposed Regulations define the term “project” generally to mean one or more capital projects or facilities, including land, buildings, equipment, and other property, to be financed with an issue, that are located on the same site, or adjacent or proximate sites used for similar purposes. In addition, to address certain special types of loan financings, the definition of a project under the Proposed Regulations also includes mortgage loans financed by mortgage revenue bonds, student loans financed by qualified student loan bonds, and working capital expenditures financed by qualified 501(c)(3) bonds.
The Proposed Regulations would continue to require a general functional description of the type and use of the financed project. The Proposed Regulations, however, would mitigate the required level of specificity of that information. Thus, the Proposed Regulations would allow an issuer of exempt facility bonds to satisfy this requirement through a statement that identifies the category of exempt facility bond (for example, bonds financing an airport or a mass commuting facility). Similarly, an issuer of other types of private activity bonds may satisfy this requirement through a statement that identifies the type of bonds and the type and use of the project (for example, qualified small issue bonds for a manufacturing facility).
The Proposed Regulations would continue to require that the public approval information include the name of the expected initial owner or the principal user of the project. The Proposed Regulations, however, would permit an issuer to name the true
The Proposed Regulations would continue to require that the public approval information include the location of the project by street address. The Proposed Regulations, however, would clarify that a description by boundary streets or other geographic boundaries suffices to meet this location requirement. The Proposed Regulations would allow a consolidated description of the location of a project on the same site or on adjacent or proximate sites (for example, a college campus).
The 1986 Tax Act extended the public approval requirement to mortgage revenue bonds, qualified student loan bonds, and qualified 501(c)(3) bonds. The Existing Regulations were promulgated before the 1986 Tax Act and thus provide no guidance tailored to the application of the public approval requirement to these types of bonds. In the General Explanation of the 1986 Tax Act, the Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation stated that, “[i]n extending this requirement to all private activity bonds, Congress intended that the applicable Treasury regulations will be amended for student loan bonds (where no facilities are financed), mortgage revenue bonds (where the exact residences to be financed may not be identified before issuance of the bonds), and qualified 501(c)(3) bonds that qualify for the special exception to the maturity limitation for pooled financings (where the facilities need not be identified before issuance of the bonds).” Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (JCS-10-87), at 1219 (May 4, 1987). Accordingly, the Proposed Regulations provide special rules for public approval of mortgage revenue bonds, qualified student loan bonds, and qualified 501(c)(3) bonds issued for pooled financings as described in section 147(b)(4).
For mortgage revenue bonds, the Proposed Regulations would require the public approval information to state that the bonds will finance residential mortgages, provide the maximum stated principal amount of the bonds, and generally describe the issuer's geographic jurisdiction in which the residences to be financed with the mortgage loans are expected to be located. Similarly, for qualified student loan bonds, the Proposed Regulations would require the public approval information to state that the bonds will finance student loans and provide the maximum stated principal amount of the bonds. For these two types of bonds, the Proposed Regulations would not require the names of borrowers to be included in the public approval information.
For qualified 501(c)(3) bonds that finance loans described in the special provision for pooled loan financings in section 147(b)(4), the Proposed Regulations would permit the issuer to choose to apply a two-stage public approval process if the issuer has insufficient information at the time of the reasonable public notice or public approval to meet the general public approval information requirements. To apply this special rule, the issuer must first obtain public approval within the time specified in the Proposed Regulations for public approval generally. For this first-stage public approval, the public approval information must state that the bonds will be qualified 501(c)(3) bonds used to finance loans described in section 147(b)(4)(B), provide the maximum stated principal amount of the bonds, generally describe the type of project to be financed with such loans (for example, loans for hospital facilities or college facilities), and state that the issuer will obtain an additional public approval with specific project information before origination of any such loans. In addition, before loan origination, the issuer must obtain a supplemental public approval of that loan containing all of the project-specific information that the public approval information rules generally require.
Differences or “deviations” between information regarding a proposed project to be financed with a proposed issuance of private activity bonds that serves as the basis for a public approval and the actual project financed with the bonds may affect the validity of the public approval. The Existing Regulations and the Proposed Regulations provide that insubstantial deviations do not invalidate a public approval. The Proposed Regulations provide additional guidance concerning differences that constitute insubstantial deviations and also allow remedial actions to cure certain substantial deviations.
The Proposed Regulations provide that whether a deviation is substantial generally depends on all of the facts and circumstances. The Proposed Regulations, however, would always treat a change in the fundamental nature or type of a project as a substantial deviation.
The Proposed Regulations would treat certain specified deviations from the public approval information provided as insubstantial deviations. For example, a deviation from the size of a proposed bond issue for a proposed project specified in public approval information is an insubstantial deviation if the stated principal amount of bonds actually issued and used for the project is no more than ten percent (10%) greater than the maximum stated principal amount publicly approved for the project or is any amount less than that maximum stated principal amount. Furthermore, if an issuer applies proceeds of an issue approved for use on one project to pay working capital expenditures directly associated with any project approved in the same public approval, that deviation is an insubstantial deviation. Finally, a deviation between the initial owner or principal user of the project identified in the public approval information and the actual initial owner or principal user of the project is an insubstantial deviation if the parties are related on the issue date.
The Proposed Regulations would allow supplemental post-issuance public approvals to cure certain substantial deviations that result from unexpected events or unforeseen changes in circumstances that occur after the issuance of the bonds. This remedial action is similar to a permitted post-issuance public approval under § 1.141-12(e)(2) and (f) used for remedial actions for purposes of the private business restrictions.
The Proposed Regulations are proposed to apply to bonds issued pursuant to a public approval that occurs on or after the date that is 90 days after publication of a Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the
In addition, the Treasury Department and the IRS propose to remove the Existing Regulations under § 5f.103-2 from 26 CFR part 5f effective on the
Certain IRS regulations, including these, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Existing Regulations provide guidance on the minimum informational content, procedures, and timing for the statutorily required public notices, public hearings, and public approvals. Although the Proposed Regulations are expected to affect a significant number of small State or local governmental units that issue tax-exempt private activity bonds, the Proposed Regulations are not expected to have a significant economic effect on those governmental units because the Proposed Regulations generally would streamline and simplify the Existing Regulations in various respects to reduce the administrative burdens of meeting the statutory public approval requirement. For example, the Proposed Regulations would permit publication of public notice by Web site to reduce costs associated with print publication or radio or television broadcast, reduce the information required to be contained in public notice and public approval for certain types of bonds, liberalize the consequences of insubstantial changes in project information, and permit curative actions to address certain circumstances in which finished projects differ from descriptions provided in the public notice or public approval. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small entities.
Before the Proposed Regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the
The principal authors of these regulations are Spence Hanemann and Vicky Tsilas, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-128841-07) that was published in the
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 5f are proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(d)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(e)
(A) The governmental unit's elected legislative body;
(B) The governmental unit's chief elected executive officer;
(C) In the case of a State, the chief elected legal officer of the State's executive branch of government; or
(D) Any official elected by the voters of the governmental unit and designated for purposes of this section by the governmental unit's chief elected executive officer or by State or local law to approve issues for the governmental unit.
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(A) Enacts a specific law (for example, a provision in a State constitution, charter, or statute) by or under which the governmental unit is created;
(B) Otherwise empowers or approves the creation of the governmental unit; or
(C) Appoints members to the governing body of the governmental unit.
(ii)
(3)
(f)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(6)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(7)
(g)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(h)
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of removing regulations from the Virginia SIP that established EPA-administered annual NO
Comments must be received in writing by October 30, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0215 at
Sara Calcinore, (215) 814 2043, or by email at
For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that the State of New Hampshire submitted to EPA on January 31, 2017 for attaining the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO
Comments must be received on or before October 30, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0083 at
Leiran Biton, EPA New England, 5 Post Office Square Suite 100, Mail Code OEP05-2, Boston, MA 02109-3912; phone: 617-918-1267; fax: 617-918-0267; email:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary SO
For a number of areas, including the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area, EPA published a notice on March 18, 2016 that New Hampshire and other pertinent states had failed to submit the required SO
The remainder of this preamble describes the requirements that nonattainment plans must meet in order to obtain EPA approval, provides a review of the State's plan with respect to these requirements, and describes EPA's proposed action on the plan.
Nonattainment SIPs must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 191 and 192. EPA's regulations governing nonattainment SIPs are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific procedural requirements and control strategy requirements residing at subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIPs in a document entitled, “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” published at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). Among other things, the General Preamble addressed SO
In order for EPA to fully approve a SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110, 172, 191, and 192, and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, the SIP for the affected area needs to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that each of the aforementioned requirements has been met. Under CAA sections 110(l) and 193, EPA may not approve a SIP that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement under the CAA. Furthermore, no requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order, settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in any nonattainment area for any air pollutant, may be modified in any manner unless it ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.
CAA sections 172(c)(1) and (6) direct states with areas designated as nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan provides for attainment of the NAAQS. Forty CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and EPA has long required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect four fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability, replicability, and accountability.
EPA's April 2014 guidance recommends that the emission limits be expressed as short-term average limits (
The April 2014 guidance provides an extensive discussion of EPA's rationale for concluding that appropriately set comparably stringent limitations based on averaging times as long as 30 days can be found to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO
As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary SO
For plans for SO
EPA recognizes that some sources have highly variable emissions, for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and operating rate, that can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-designed control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any given hour do not exceed the critical emission value. EPA also acknowledges the concern that longer-term emission limits can allow short periods with emissions above the critical emission value, which, if coincident with meteorological conditions conducive to high SO
Second, from a more theoretical perspective, EPA has compared the likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set longer-term limit, as compared to the likely air quality with the source having maximum allowable emissions under the comparable 1-hour limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour average limit scenario, the source is presumed at all times to emit at the critical emission level, and in the longer-term average limit scenario, the source is presumed occasionally to emit more than the critical emission value but on average, and presumably at most times, to emit well below the critical emission value. In an “average year,” compliance with the 1-hour limit is expected to result in three exceedance days (
As a hypothetical example to illustrate these points, suppose a source always emits 1,000 pounds of SO
This simplified example illustrates the findings of a more complicated statistical analysis that EPA conducted using a range of scenarios using actual plant data. As described in appendix B of EPA's April 2014 SO
The question then becomes whether this approach—which is likely to produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may produce some unexpected exceedances above the critical emission value—meets the requirement in section 110(a)(1) and 172(c)(1) and (6) for state implementation plans to “provide for
The April 2014 guidance offers specific recommendations for determining an appropriate longer-term average limit. The recommended method starts with determination of the 1-hour emission limit that would provide for attainment (
Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are described in appendix A of EPA's
As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour primary SO
The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be processed with the most recent version of AERMET. Estimated concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should follow the form of the standard, and should be calculated as described in the August 23, 2010 clarification memo on “Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr SO
The following discussion evaluates various features of the modeling that New Hampshire used in its attainment demonstration.
New Hampshire's attainment demonstration used EPA's preferred model AERMOD (version 15181) with default options (
For any dispersion modeling exercise, the “urban” or “rural” determination of
To investigate whether the rural determination was correct, EPA examined aerial imagery within 3 km of the facility and classified land use within the total area, as described in section 7.2.1.1 of the
The State used AERMOD version 15181, the most up-to-date version at the time the area was modeled, using all regulatory default options. AERMOD version 16216r has since become the regulatory model version. There were no updates from 15181 to 16216r that would significantly affect the concentrations predicted here.
The ADJ_U* option, which adjusts the minimum surface roughness velocity under stable, low-wind speed conditions, was not invoked by the State. Not invoking ADJ_U*, as in the demonstration submitted by New Hampshire, may result in higher modeled concentrations; therefore, this element of the model option selection is conservative (
EPA finds this selection appropriate because this model version using default options is sufficiently up to date, the rural option selection is in line with site characteristics, and the selection of default surface roughness velocity characteristics (
New Hampshire accounted for SO
For the purpose of ensuring that no other sources of SO
EPA examined whether Monadnock Paper might have an influence on the nonattainment area. The main criterion described in section 8.3 of the
To examine the possible influence of other sources on the nonattainment area, EPA considered the most recent modeling assessment for Schiller and Newington stations provided by New Hampshire to EPA in February 2017 for purposes of SO
Additionally, EPA believes that the background levels reasonably account for other sources influencing air quality within the nonattainment area because data used to develop background levels include hours during which those sources may have impacted the monitors.
Therefore, based on the reasoning provided in the preceding paragraphs, EPA concludes that the State appropriately accounted for these other sources through the inclusion of monitored background concentrations (see section IV.H below).
Within AERMOD, air quality concentration results are calculated at discrete locations identified by the user; these locations are called receptors. The receptor placement for the area of analysis selected by the State is a network of polar grids centered on Merrimack Station to a distance of 50 km in all directions. Polar grid radii were spaced at 10 degree intervals. Receptors were placed every 20 meters along the perimeter of and excluded within the facility. Polar receptors along the radii were spaced as follows:
In addition to the 4,349 receptors included in the description above, the State included 2,308 additional receptors in dense Cartesian arrays with 100-meter spatial resolution, over areas of expected maximum predicted concentrations based on preliminary modeling. Specifically, this was done in areas of complex terrain features at distances between 5 and 15 km of Merrimack Station.
The receptor network contained a total of 6,657 receptors, covering a
New Hampshire used AERMOD's meteorological data preprocessor AERMET (version 15181) with 2 years of surface and concurrent upper air meteorological data. The State relied on site-specific surface observations collected at Merrimack Station in Bow, New Hampshire during the 23-month period from January 1994 through November 1995 at five meteorological tower measurement levels and fifteen SODAR (Sound Detection and Ranging) levels. In addition, the State used surface observations from the National Weather Service (NWS) station at Concord Municipal Airport in Concord, New Hampshire (WBAN Station No. 14745) in the following ways: (1) To supplement site-specific surface data with additional parameters (sky cover, ceiling height, and surface pressure) not available in the site-specific meteorological data, (2) to substitute for missing site-specific wind observations (51 hours of the 16,776 hours of the 23 month period), and (3) to extend the meteorological dataset through December 1995 to develop a full 2-year analysis period. Concord Municipal Airport is approximately 7 km to the north-northwest of Merrimack Station. The State used coincident upper air observations from different NWS stations located in Portland, Maine (WBAN Station No. 14764) from January 1, 1994 through September 21, 1994, and Gray, Maine (WBAN Station No. 54762) from September 22, 1994 through December 31, 1995. (The Portland station ceased its upper air observations on September 22, 1994, when the Gray station began its upper air observations.) The Portland station is around 110 km to the northeast of Merrimack and the Gray station is around 130 km to the northeast of Merrimack.
New Hampshire also considered the use of more recent (2008-2012) NWS data collected at Concord Municipal Airport. The State cited two potential advantages of using this alternative dataset, mainly that it was significantly newer and included data derived from 1-minute resolution observations using the AERMINUTE preprocessor to AERMET. New Hampshire weighed these considerations against the advantages of using the 1994-1995 site-specific data, specifically: (1) The observation height for the site-specific data is closer in height to the stacks at Merrimack Station than the 8 meter collection height for the NWS data; (2) the site-specific wind direction data are more representative of the channeling effect within the Merrimack River valley in the location of Merrimack Station; and (3) use of the site-specific data would be consistent with previous modeling of Merrimack, which relied on the site-specific meteorology.
EPA concurs with the choice of surface and upper air meteorological data inputs as being appropriately representative of site-specific meteorology. Specifically, EPA has judged the representativeness of the measured surface meteorological data according to the following four factors, as listed in section 8.4.1(b) to the
The State used AERSURFACE version 13016 using land cover data from the 1992 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) for both surface data collection locations to estimate the surface characteristics (albedo, Bowen ratio, and surface roughness length) of the area of analysis. The State estimated surface roughness length values for 12 spatial sectors out to the recommended radius of 1 km at a monthly temporal resolution for average surface moisture conditions. EPA concurs with New Hampshire's approach to developing relevant surface characteristics for use in processing meteorological data for this area.
EPA also reviewed the State's source characterization in its modeling assessment, including source types, use of accurate stack parameters, and inclusion of building dimensions for building downwash. The State's source characterization in its modeling demonstration was consistent with the recommendations included in the
New Hampshire included maximum allowable 1-hour emissions from Merrimack Station in its modeled attainment demonstration for the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area. The State indicated that SO
New Hampshire provided attainment modeling used to support its establishment of emission rates for Merrimack Station. In establishing the emission limits, the State followed EPA's April 2014 guidance by using modeling to develop a critical emission value and adjustment factor to establish a longer term limit for Merrimack. The State modeled three “normal operating scenarios,” comprised of one scenario with maximum operation of both utility boilers (scenario 1), and two other scenarios with maximum operation of each boiler individually (scenarios 2 and 3, respectively). In 2011, New Hampshire issued a permit (TP-0008) for Merrimack Station that contained, among other things, SO
In summary, EPA concurs with the State's selection in its attainment demonstration modeling of emissions from utility boilers at Merrimack Station, and exclusion of additional emission sources at Merrimack due to their intermittent operation.
An important prerequisite for approval of a nonattainment plan is that the emission limits that provide for attainment be quantifiable, fully enforceable, replicable, and accountable.
On September 1, 2016, New Hampshire issued a permit, TP-0189, to Public Service of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy for Merrimack Station. The permit became effective and enforceable upon issuance, and was issued pursuant to RSA 125-C:11. These requirements are more stringent than the applicable measures for the facility, which require 90% reduction for both MK1 and MK2, as incorporated into the SIP by reference to Table 4, Items 6 and 8 of TP-0008. EPA considers the 30-boiler operating day limits included in TP-0189 (specifically, Table 4, Item 2) to supersede the conditions specified in Table 4, Items 6 and 8 of TP-0008.
Monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping requirements related to all of the permit's SO
New Hampshire developed a critical emission value for each of the three normal operating scenarios (see section IV.F above) using a target concentration threshold of 183.2 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m
Using hourly emission data provided by EPA's Air Markets Program Data database for Merrimack Station for the period between July 4, 2013 and March 30, 2015 (
Based on a review of the State's submittal, EPA believes that the 7-boiler operating day average limit for Merrimack Station provides a suitable alternative to establishing a 1-hour average emission limit for this source. The State has used a suitable database in an appropriate manner and has thereby applied an appropriate adjustment, yielding an emission limit that has comparable stringency to the 1-hour average limit that the State determined would otherwise have been necessary to provide for attainment. While the 7-boiler operating day average limit allows occasions in which emissions may be higher than the level that would be allowed with the 1-hour limit, the State's limit compensates by requiring average emissions to be lower than the level that would otherwise have been required by a 1-hour average limit. For the reasons described above and explained in more detail in EPA's April 2014 guidance for SO
In the April 2014 guidance for SO
To develop background concentrations for the nonattainment area, the State of New Hampshire relied on 2012-2014 data from two monitors within the nonattainment area: The Pembroke monitor, Air Quality System (AQS) number 33-013-1006, and the Concord monitor, AQS number 33-013-1007. The Pembroke monitor is located on Pleasant Street in Pembroke, New Hampshire, about 1.3 km to the southeast of Merrimack Station, and the Concord monitor is located at Hazen Drive in Concord, New Hampshire, about 9.4 km to the north-northwest of Merrimack Station. Each of these monitors was sited to record neighborhood scale exposure levels rather than regional background levels; there are currently no regional background monitors in the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area. Per section 8.3.1.a of the
The modeling analysis upon which the State relied in establishing a critical emission value for setting emission limits for Merrimack Station results in concentrations of no greater than 196.0 µg/m
The emissions inventory and source emission rate data for an area serve as the foundation for air quality modeling and other analyses that enable states to: (1) Estimate the degree to which different sources within a nonattainment area contribute to violations within the affected area; and (2) assess the expected improvement in air quality within the nonattainment area due to the adoption and implementation of control measures. As noted above, the State must develop and submit to EPA a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of SO
In its plan, New Hampshire included a current emissions inventory for the nonattainment area and also for the three-county area of Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Rockingham Counties based on the 2011-2015 period. The State principally relied on 2014 as the most complete and representative record of annual SO
New Hampshire also developed a projected emission inventory for the 2018 attainment year. The emissions projection indicates 1,927 tons of SO
EPA agrees that the State's emissions inventories are appropriate because they rely on well-established and vetted estimates of emissions for the current period and attainment year, respectively.
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT)) and shall provide for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA interprets RACM, including RACT, under section 172, as measures that a state determines to be reasonably available and which contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practicable for existing sources in the area.
In its January 31, 2017 SIP submittal, New Hampshire identified the operational and SO
The air modeling analysis submitted to EPA during the development of the SO
The Central New Hampshire Area is currently showing an attaining design value for 2014-2016, and has been since
Based on New Hampshire's modeling demonstration, which accounted for the SO
The State's plan also includes a broader discussion of the SO
EPA concurs with New Hampshire's approach and analysis, and proposes to conclude that the State has satisfied the requirement in section 172(c)(1) to adopt and submit all RACM as needed to attain the SO
EPA last approved New Hampshire's Env-A 618 nonattainment new source review rules on May 25, 2017 (82 FR 24057). These rules provide for appropriate new source review for SO
New Hampshire concluded that the appropriate control measures were implemented as expeditiously as practicable in order to ensure attainment of the standard by the applicable attainment date. Specifically, the State implemented its main control strategy,
As discussed in our guidance, Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA defines contingency measures as such measures in a SIP that are to be implemented in the event that an area fails to make RFP, or fails to attain the NAAQS, by the applicable attainment date. Contingency measures are to become effective without further action by the state or EPA, where the area has failed to (1) achieve RFP or (2) attain the NAAQS by the statutory attainment date for the affected area. These control measures are to consist of other available control measures that are not included in the control strategy for the nonattainment area SIP. EPA guidance describes special features of SO
For its contingency program, New Hampshire proposed to continue to operate a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of the SO
Based on the contingency measures identified by the State in its plan submittal, EPA believes that New Hampshire's plan provides for satisfying the contingency measure requirement. EPA concurs and proposes to approve New Hampshire's plan for meeting the contingency measure requirement in this manner.
The State addresses general conformity and transportation conformity requirements as they apply to the nonattainment area. Generally, as set forth in section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, conformity requires that actions by federal agencies do not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS. General conformity applies to federal actions, other than certain highway and transportation projects, if the action takes place in a nonattainment area or maintenance area (
Federal Highway and Federal Transit Administration projects are subject to transportation conformity rather than general conformity requirements, with some exceptions. New Hampshire asserts in its plan that due to minimal impact on SO
The State quantified the changes in allowable emissions expected to result from implementation of its nonattainment area plan. To do so, the State compared allowable annual emissions at Merrimack Station prior to installation of the FGD control system with those after the system was operational and with those with the conditions of TP-0189 in place (
New Hampshire also included trends in ambient monitoring data for the nonattainment area. In its nonattainment plan, the State shows that ambient concentrations in the area have dropped markedly since 2011, when Merrimack Station began operation of its FGD system under the SIP-approved conditions of TP-0008, and are now below 75 ppb, the level of the NAAQS. The monitored design value for the Pembroke monitor (AQS number 33-013-1006), consistently the highest in the area, was 23 ppb for 2012 to 2014, and 20 ppb for both 2013 to 2015 and 2014 to 2016.
Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires nonattainment SIPs to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. While the provisions of 110(a)(2) address various topics, EPA's past determinations suggest that only the section 110(a)(2) criteria linked with a particular area's designation and classification are relevant to section 172(c)(7). This nonattainment SIP submittal satisfies all applicable criteria of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, as evidenced by the State's nonattainment new source review program which addresses 110(a)(2)(I), the included control strategy, and the associated emissions limits which are relevant to 110(a)(2)(A). In addition, EPA approved the State's SO
Section 172(c)(8) of the CAA states that upon application by any state, the Administrator may allow the use of equivalent modeling, emission inventory, and planning procedures, unless the Administrator determines that the proposed techniques are, in the aggregate, less effective than the methods specified by the Administrator.
The State's nonattainment SIP indicates that it followed existing regulations, guidance, and standard practices when conducting modeling, preparing the emissions inventories, and implementing its planning procedures. Therefore, the State did not use or request approval of alternative or equivalent techniques as allowed under of the CAA and EPA is proposing to conclude that the State's nonattainment SIP meets the requirements of section 172(c)(8) of the CAA.
EPA has determined that New Hampshire's SO
In the January 31, 2017 submittal to EPA, New Hampshire included the applicable monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting
EPA is not proposing to remove from the existing New Hampshire SIP, Table 4, items 6, 8, and 10 contained in Merrimack Station's July 2011 permit, TP-0008, because EPA has not received a request from the State to do so.
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference certain federally enforceable provisions of Merrimack Station's permit, TP-0189, effective on September 1, 2016. Specifically, the following provisions of that permit are proposed to be incorporated by reference: Items 1, 2, and 3 in Table 4 (“Operating and Emission Limits”); items 1 and 2 in Table 5 (“Monitoring and Testing Requirements”); items 1 and 2 in Table 6 (“Recordkeeping Requirements”); and items 1 and 2 in Table 7 (“Reporting Requirements”).
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by Reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing this action to correct an editing oversight that lead to a potential conflict in a prior rulemaking as to whether or not containers holding two pounds or less of non-exempt substitute refrigerants for use in motor vehicle air conditioning that are not equipped with a self-sealing valve can be sold to persons that are not certified technicians, provided those small cans were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018. This action clarifies that those small cans may continue to be sold to persons that are not certified as technicians under sections 608 or 609 of the Clean Air Act. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Written comments must be received by October 30, 2017. Any party requesting a public hearing must notify the contact listed below under
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0213, at
Sara Kemme by regular mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone: (202) 566-0511; or by email:
On November 18, 2016, EPA published a rule finalizing a restriction that non-exempt substitute refrigerants may only be sold to technicians certified under sections 608 or 609 of the CAA (81 FR 82280). In the case of refrigerant for use in motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC), EPA finalized the exemption for the sale of certain small cans of non-ozone-depleting substitutes with a self-sealing valve to allow the do-it-yourself community to continue servicing their personal vehicles. However, the Agency did not finalize a sell-through provision as proposed. Instead, EPA intended to allow the continued sale of small cans without self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported before January 1, 2018, and described that intent in the preamble to the final rule.
These intentions were also expressed in the regulatory text at 40 CFR 82.154(c)(2), which was revised in the November 2016 rule to state: “
The Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute and the Auto Care Association inquired about whether the language in 40 CFR 82.154(c)(1)(ix) effectively negates the provision in 40 CFR 82.154(c)(2) and the preamble discussion showing EPA's intention to allow small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC manufactured or imported before January 1, 2018, to continue to be sold without self-sealing valves. EPA is proposing this rule to revise the regulatory text so that persons in possession of small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC without self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported before January 1, 2018, can be assured that they will be able to sell off their existing inventories without disruption.
EPA has published a direct final rule making identical edits to the regulatory text as those proposed here in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. In that case, we would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.
We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. EPA is not proposing, and is not seeking comment on, any changes to the regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F other than the proposed revisions discussed in this notice. For further information on how to submit comments, please see the information provided in the
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include entities that distribute or sell small cans refrigerant for use in MVAC. Regulated entities include, but are not limited to, manufacturers and distributors of small cans of refrigerant (NAICS codes 325120, 441310, 447110) such as automotive parts and accessories stores and industrial gas manufacturers.
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, or organization could be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action clarifies that small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC may be sold to persons who are not certified technicians even if they are not equipped with a self-sealing valve, so long as those small cans are manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action corrects a potential conflict in the refrigerant management regulations as to whether or not small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC could be sold to non-technicians if they were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018, and do not have a self-sealing valve. This action clarifies that those small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC may be sold to persons who are not certified technicians.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action corrects a potential conflict in the refrigerant management regulations as to whether or not small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC could be sold to non-technicians if they were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018, and do not have a self-sealing valve. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action corrects a potential conflict in the refrigerant management regulations as to whether or not small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC could be sold to non-technicians if they were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018, and do not have a self-sealing valve. This action clarifies that those small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC may be sold to persons who are not certified technicians. The documentation for this decision is contained in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0213, where EPA's assessment of the underlying regulatory changes that necessitated this correction found no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 82 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) The non-exempt substitute refrigerant is intended for use in an MVAC and is sold in a container designed to hold two pounds or less of refrigerant, has a unique fitting, and, if manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2018, has a self-sealing valve that complies with the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by October 30, 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),
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.
Rural Development, Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA).
This Notice announces that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is accepting applications for the Technical Assistance and Training Grant Program (TAT). RUS is providing an amount of funding to be determined to provide technical assistance and training grants for disaster recovery (TAT/DR) to RUS eligible water and sewer utilities serving areas subject to Presidential disaster declarations in effect on or after the date of this notice which are beyond the scope or capacity of existing grant agreements or contracts with the RUS and do not duplicate other federal assistance to water and sewer utilities in the affected areas. No single award will exceed $600,000 and more than one grant may be made. Expenses incurred in developing applications will be at the applicant's risk. Once funding for TAT has been determined, RUS will publish the program funding level on the Rural Development Web site
Applications for TAT/DR grant(s) must be received by October 18, 2017. Reminder of competitive grant application deadline: Applications must be submitted electronically through
You may submit electronic grant applications at
Anita O'Brien, Loan Specialist, Water Program Division, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, by email at
I. Funding Opportunity: Brief Introduction to the Technical Assistance and Training for Disaster Recovery (TAT/DR) Grants.
Drinking water and wastewater systems are basic and vital to both health and economic development. With dependable water facilities and environmentally sound waste disposal, rural communities can attract families and businesses that will invest in the community and improve the quality of life for all residents. Without dependable water and wastewater facilities, the communities cannot sustain economic development. RUS supports the sound development of rural communities and the growth of our economy without endangering the environment. RUS provides financial and technical assistance to help communities bring safe drinking water and sanitary, environmentally sound waste disposal facilities to rural Americans in greatest need.
The Technical Assistance and Training (TAT) Grant Program has been established under 7 CFR part 1775 to assist communities with water or wastewater systems through free technical assistance and/or training provided by the grant recipients. Qualified private non-profit organizations will receive TAT grant funds to identify and evaluate solutions to water and waste disposal problems in rural areas, assist applicants in preparing applications for water and waste grants made at the State level offices, and improve operation and maintenance of existing water and waste disposal facilities in rural areas.
II. Federal Award Information: Available funds, maximum amounts; $1,000,000
III. Eligibility Information: Who is eligible, what kinds of projects are eligible, what criteria determine basic eligibility
IV. Application and Submission Information: Where to apply; what constitutes a completed application; how to submit applications; deadlines; and, items that are eligible
V. Application Review Information: Considerations and preferences; scoring criteria; review standards; and selection information
VI. Federal Award Administration Information: Award notice information and award recipient reporting requirements
VII. Agency Contacts: Web, phone, email, and contact name
VIII. USDA Non-Discrimination Statement
Drinking water and sewer systems are basic and vital to public health, the environment and economic development. Hurricanes, floods, forest fires and other natural disasters have severely damaged water systems in multiple states. Without dependable water supply, rural communities in these states will not attract families and businesses to return and invest in rural disaster damaged communities.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) supports rural prosperity, quality of life, economic development and stewardship of the environment. RUS provides financial and technical assistance to help communities bring safe drinking water and sanitary, environmentally sound waste disposal facilities to rural Americans in greatest need.
The additional funding made available under this notice for TAT/DR grants will allow rural communities to rebuild water and sewer infrastructure damaged by recent disasters and enhance the security of the RUS loan portfolio. Qualified private, non-profit organizations with expertise and a record of experience in providing technical assistance and training to RUS eligible water and sewer utilities may apply to receive a grant to provide technical assistance to RUS eligible water and sewer utilities in areas covered by a Presidential disaster declaration on or after the date of this notice. Grants are for disaster recovery related technical assistance, including such services as helping eligible rural water and sewer utilities complete Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) claims, and file insurance recovery claims, address and cure outstanding delinquencies, and assisting new and returning RUS applicants prepare applications for water and waste disposal loans and grants as needed.
Available funds: To be determined.
An organization is eligible to receive a TAT grant if it:
a. Is a private, non-profit organization that has tax-exempt status from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS);
b. Is legally established and located within one of the following:
• A state within the United States
• the District of Columbia
• the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
• a United States territory
c. Has the legal capacity and authority to carry out the grant purpose;
d. Has a proven record of successfully providing technical assistance and/or training to rural areas;
e. Has capitalization acceptable to the Agency, and is composed of at least 51 percent of the outstanding interest or membership being citizens of the United States or individuals who reside in the United States after being legally admitted for permanent residence;
f. Has no delinquent debt to the federal government or no outstanding judgments to repay a federal debt;
g. Demonstrates that it possesses the financial, technical, and managerial capability to comply with federal and State laws and requirements;
h. Contracts with a nonaffiliated organization for not more than 49 percent of the grant to provide the proposed assistance.
The applying entity (Applicant) must:
1. Be a private, national, non-profit organization that has tax-exempt status from the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS);
2. Be legally established and located within The United States of America;
3. Have the legal capacity and authority to carry out the grant purposes;
4. Have no delinquent debt to the Federal Government or no outstanding judgments to repay a Federal debt;
5. Have proven expertise and experience delivering technical assistance and training to RUS eligible water and sewer utilities.
The qualified applicant must provide technical assistance to RUS eligible water and sewer utilities in rural areas covered by a Presidential disaster declaration existing on or after the date of this notice on disaster recovery related matters meeting the objectives and purposes of the program under 7 CFR part 1775.
A. Where to get application information:
B. Applicants will need a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number.
a. Legal Name of the Applicant;
b. Headquarters name and address of the Applicant;
c. The names under which the Applicant is doing business as (dba) or other name by which the organization is commonly recognized;
d. Physical address of the Applicant;
e. Mailing address (if separate from headquarters and/or physical address) of the Applicant;
f. Telephone number;
g. Contact name and title;
h. Number of employees at the physical location.
C. The application and any materials sent with it become Federal records by law and cannot be returned to you.
D. You must file an electronic application at the Web site:
The CCR registers your organization, housing your organizational information and allowing
The Credential Provider gives you or your representative a username and password, as part of the Federal Government's e-Authentication to ensure a secure transaction. You will need the username and password when you register with
1. To be considered for assistance, you must be an eligible entity and must submit a complete application by the deadline date. You must consult the cost principles and general administrative requirements for grants pertaining to their organizational type in order to prepare the budget and complete other parts of the application. You also must demonstrate compliance (or intent to comply), through certification or other means, with a number of public policy requirements as demonstrated in the forms below.
2. Applicants must complete and submit the following forms to apply for a Technical Assistance and Training grant:
(a) Standard Form 424, “Application for Federal Assistance”
(b) Standard Form 424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs”
(c) Standard Form 424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs”
(d) Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activity”
(e) AD-3030, “Representations Regarding felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicant”
(f) AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicant”
(g) Form RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement”
(h) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement (Under Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964)
(i) Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable, applicant must include approved cost agreement rate schedule)
(j) Certification regarding Forest Service grant.
3. All applications shall be accompanied by the following supporting documentation in concise written narrative form:
(a) Evidence of applicant's legal existence and authority.
(b) Evidence of tax exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
(c) A short statement of applicant's experience in providing services similar to those proposed.
(d) A brief description of successfully completed projects including the need that was identified and objectives accomplished.
(e) The latest financial information to show the applicant's financial capacity to carry out the proposed work.
(f) A list of proposed services to be provided.
(g) An estimated breakdown of costs (direct and indirect) including those to be funded by grantee as well as other sources. Sufficient detail should be provided to permit the approval official to determine reasonableness, applicability, and eligibility.
(h) Evidence that a Financial Management System is in place or proposed.
(i) A description of national reach and capability.
(ii) A description of the type of technical assistance and/or training to be provided and the tasks to be contracted.
(iii) A description of how the effectiveness and results of the proposed TAT/DR project will be measured.
(iv) A clear explanation of how the proposed services differ from other similar services being provided in the same area and measures to be taken to avoid duplication of federal effort.
(v) Number of personnel on staff or to be contracted to provide the service and their experience with similar projects.
(vi) A statement indicating the maximum number of months it would take to complete the project.
(vii) Explanation of the cost effectiveness of project.
4. Applicants must also submit a flexible work plan/project proposal that will outline the project in sufficient detail to provide a reader with a clear understanding of how the proposed TAT/DR project will address the technical assistance needs of RUS eligible water and sewer utilities in affected rural disaster areas that exist at the time of this notice or that may emerge during the term of the grant agreement.
5. The applicant must provide evidence of compliance with other federal statutes, including but not limited to the following:
i. Debarment and suspension information is required in accordance with 2 CFR part 417 (Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension) supplemented by 2 CFR part 180, if it applies. The section heading is “What information must I provide before entering into a covered transaction with the Federal Government?” located at 2 CFR 180.335. It is part of OMB's Guidance for Grants and Agreements concerning Government-wide Debarment and Suspension.
ii. All of your organization's known workplaces by including the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the award takes place. Workplace identification is required under the drug-free workplace requirements in Subpart B of 2 CFR part 421, which adopts the Government-wide
iii. 2 CFR parts 200 and 400 (Uniform Assistance Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards).
iv. 2 CFR part 182 (Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance)) and 2 CFR part 421 (Requirements for Drug Free Workplace (Financial Assistance)).
v. Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” For information on limited English proficiency and agency-specific guidance, go to
6.
In accordance with 2 CFR part 25, whether applying electronically or by paper, the applicant must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application. Applicants may register for the SAM at
A. RUS will acknowledge the application's receipt by email to the applicant. The application will be reviewed for completeness to determine if it contains all of the items required. If the application is incomplete or ineligible, RUS will return it to the Applicant with an explanation. The RUS reserves the right to request additional information once an application is determined to be complete to address specific disaster recovery needs that are known or anticipated at the time of evaluation or to minimize the risk of duplication of other federal efforts. The RUS grant offer to a successful applicant will be based on the submitted application and may be more narrowly tailored than the submitted application to meet rural community needs at the time of the offer or over the course of the grant period.
B. A review team, composed of at least two members, will evaluate all applications and proposals. They will make overall recommendations based on factors such as eligibility, application completeness, and conformity to application requirements. They will score the applications based on criteria in paragraph C of this section.
C. All applications that are complete and eligible will be scored and ranked competitively. The categories for scoring criteria used are the following:
A. RUS will rank all qualifying applications by their final score. Applications will be selected for funding based on the highest scores. No grant will exceed $600,000. The agency expects to award a small number of grants under this notice. The agency reserves the right to make no grant awards if all applications are incomplete and/or scorebelow 65 points. Each applicant will be notified via email of the agency's funding decision.
B. In making its decision about your application, RUS may determine that your application is:
1. Eligible and selected for funding;
2. Eligible and offered fewer funds than requested;
3. Eligible but not selected for funding; or
4. Ineligible for the grant.
C. Given the exigency of the need to respond to recent hurricanes, tornados, floods, forest fires and other presidentially declared emergencies, appeals of the funding decisions under this notice shall be made exclusively to the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service within 10 business days of receiving email notice of the funding decision. The Administrator's decision shall be final and non-reviewable by the National Appeals Division.
D. Applicants selected for funding will complete a grant agreement suitable to RUS, which outlines the terms and conditions of the grant award. Pursuant to the grant agreement, grant funds may be released over the course of the grant period in reimbursement for the performance of eligible, approved activities which do not duplicate similar federal efforts or tasks. The grant agreement may also include reporting and pre-approval requirements consistent with 7 CFR part 1775 which if not met, may result in a delay in reimbursement, disallowance of expense or a suspension of the grant.
E. Grantees will be reimbursed as follows:
1. SF-270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” will be completed by the grantee and submitted to either the State or National Office not more frequently than monthly.
2. Upon receipt of a properly completed SF-270, payment will ordinarily be made within 30 days.
F. Any change in the scope of the project, budget adjustments of more than 10 percent of the total budget, or any other significant change in the project must be reported to and approved by the approval official by written amendment to the Grant Agreement. Any change not approved may be cause for termination of the grant.
G. Project reporting.
1. Grantees shall constantly monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met, projected work by time periods is being accomplished, and other performance objectives are being achieved.
2. SF-269, “Financial Status Report (short form),” and a project performance activity report will be required of all grantees on a quarterly basis, due 30 days after the end of each quarter.
3. A final project performance report will be required with the last SF-269 due 90 days after the end of the last quarter in which the project is completed. The final report may serve as the last quarterly report.
4. All grantees are to submit an original of each report to the National Office. The project performance reports should detail, in a narrative format, activities that have transpired for the specific time period.
H. The grantee will provide an audit report or financial statements in accordance with Uniform Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200, subpart F.
A.
B.
C.
D.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
On May 24, 2017, Nutkao USA, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed export-only production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 214 in Battleboro, North Carolina.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On May 8, 2017, the Brunswick and Glynn County Development Authority, grantee of FTZ 144, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, within Site 2 of FTZ 144.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On May 8, 2017, the Port of Long Beach, California, grantee of FTZ 50, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, within Site 41 of FTZ 50.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the
On May 15, 2017, Bell Sports, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 114F, in Rantoul, Illinois.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On May 10, 2017, Hans-Mill Corporation submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 64D, in Jacksonville, Florida.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On June 1, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Sacramento-Yolo Port District, grantee of FTZ 143, requesting an expansion of Subzone 143D, subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 143, on behalf of Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon Fiber and Composites, Inc., in Sacramento, California.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
On January 31, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 163, on behalf of LT Autos, LLC, in Ponce, Puerto Rico. The application was amended on June 28, 2017.
The amended application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notices in the
On May 8, 2017, the City of Baltimore, Maryland, grantee of FTZ 74, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, within Site 6 of FTZ 74.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Valeo North America, Inc. (Valeo) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Winchester, Kentucky within FTZ 47. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on September 19, 2017.
The applicant has also submitted a separate application for FTZ designation at the Valeo facility under FTZ 47. The facility is used for the final assembly of clutch and compressor components for the automotive industry. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Valeo from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, Valeo would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Compressor assemblies for motor vehicles; and, electromagnetic clutch assemblies (duty rate ranges from free to 3.1%). Valeo would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Electromagnetic clutch assemblies; compressor bodies and housings; compressor coils; rotors; compressor armatures; compressor fittings; stainless steel bolts; stainless steel screws; and, electromagnetic shims and snap rings (duty rate ranges from free to 8.5%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 7, 2017.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the City and County of Denver, Colorado, grantee of FTZ 123, requesting subzone status for the facilities of Lockheed Martin Corporation, Space Systems Company (Lockheed Martin), located in Littleton, Colorado. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on September 25, 2017.
The proposed subzone (86.35 acres) is located at 12257 South Wadsworth Boulevard, Littleton, Colorado. A notification of proposed production activity will be submitted and will be published separately for public comment. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 123.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 7, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 22, 2017.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at
On July 20, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the City of San Jose, grantee of FTZ 18, requesting an expansion of Subzone 18F, subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 18, on behalf of Lam Research Corporation, in Fremont and Livermore, California.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
On June 13, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Richland-Lexington Airport District, grantee of FTZ 127, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 127, on behalf of BGM America, Inc., in Marion, South Carolina.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Greater Cincinnati FTZ, Inc., grantee of FTZ 47, requesting subzone status for the facility of Valeo North America, Inc. (Valeo), located in Winchester, Kentucky. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on September 25, 2017.
The proposed subzone (12 acres) is located at 1175 Enterprise Drive, Winchester. A notification of proposed production activity has been submitted and is being processed under 15 CFR 400.37 (Doc. B-59-2017). The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 47.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 7, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 22, 2017.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
On May 15, 2017, McFarland Cascade Holdings, Inc./Stella-Jones Corporation (McFarland Cascade) submitted a notification of proposed export-only production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ Subzone 86H in Tacoma, Washington.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA) is announcing an additional upcoming trade mission that will be recruited, organized, and implemented by ITA. The mission is:
A summary of the mission is found below. Application information and more detailed mission information, including the commercial setting and sector information, can be found at the trade mission Web site:
For each mission, recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
An applicant must sign and submit a completed application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the represented company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If an incomplete application form is submitted or the information and material submitted does not demonstrate how the applicant satisfies the participation criteria, the Department of Commerce may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the application.
Each applicant must:
• Identify whether the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent U.S. content. In cases where the U.S. content does not exceed 50 percent, especially where the applicant intends to pursue investment in major project opportunities, the following factors may be considered in determining whether the applicant's participation in the Mission is in the U.S. national interest:
○ U.S. materials and equipment content;
○ U.S. labor content;
○ Contribution to the U.S. technology base, including conduct of research and development in the United States;
○ Repatriation of profits to the U.S. economy;
○ Potential for follow-on business that would benefit the U.S. economy;
• Certify that the export of their products and services is in compliance with U.S. export controls and regulations;
• Certify that it has identified to the Department of Commerce any business matter pending before any bureau or office in the Departments of Commerce;
• Certify that it has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the Departments of Commerce; and
• Certify that it and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with a company's/participant's involvement in this mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials.
In the case of a trade association, the applicant must certify that each firm or service provider to be represented by the association can make the above certifications.
Selection will be based on the following criteria, listed in decreasing order of importance:
• Suitability of the company's (or in the case of a trade association, represented company's) products or services to the Chinese market and the likelihood of increased exports or business interests in China as a result of this mission;
• Consistency of the company's (or in the case of a trade association, represented company's) goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission;
• Rank/seniority of the applicant's designated representative;
• Current or pending major project/transaction/agreement/investment with Chinese entities or organizations with a capacity to increase U.S. exports to China; and
• Demonstrated export experience (in the case of a trade association, of the companies being represented) to China and/or other foreign markets.
The balance of entities participating in the mission with respect to type, size, location, sector or subsector may also be considered during the review process.
Referrals from political organizations and any information, including on the application, containing references to political contributions or other partisan political activities will be excluded from the application and will not be considered during the selection process. The sender will be notified of these exclusions.
If and when an applicant is selected to participate on a particular mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the amount of the designated participation fee below is required. Upon notification of acceptance to participate, those selected have 5 business days to submit payment or the acceptance may be revoked.
Participants selected for a trade mission will be expected to pay for the cost of personal expenses, including, but not limited to, international travel, lodging, meals, transportation, communication, and incidentals, unless otherwise noted. Participants will, however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms. In the event that a mission is cancelled, no personal expenses paid in anticipation of a mission will be reimbursed. However, participation fees for a cancelled mission will be reimbursed to the extent they have not already been expended in anticipation of the mission.
If a visa is required to travel on a particular mission, applying for and obtaining such visas will be the responsibility of the mission participant. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are not included in the participation fee. However, the Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain business visas.
Trade Mission members participate in trade missions and undertake mission-related travel at their own risk. The nature of the security situation in a given foreign market at a given time cannot be guaranteed. The U.S. Government does not make any representations or guarantees as to the safety or security of participants. The U.S. Department of State issues U.S. Government international travel alerts and warnings for U.S. citizens available at
For purposes of assessing participation fees, the Department of Commerce defines Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SME) as a firm with 500 or fewer employees or that otherwise qualifies as a small business under SBA regulations (see
United States Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross will lead a Trade Mission to China in mid-November 2017. This multi-sector mission will promote U.S. exports to China by supporting U.S. companies in launching or increasing their business in the marketplace, as well as address trade policy issues with high-level Chinese officials. Key elements will include business-to-government and business-to-industry meetings, market briefings, networking events and opportunities to promote new deals and agreements between mission participants and Chinese entities through signing ceremonies.
In April 2017, President Trump and President Xi met at Mar-a-Lago to discuss strategic and economic concerns of both countries. The Presidents agreed to meet again in 2017 to further the relationship. Addressing the imbalance in U.S.-China trade has been a central focus of discussions between President Trump and President Xi, and this trade mission will advance the bilateral commercial relationship by promoting business deals between U.S. and Chinese firms, as well as addressing market access barriers faced by U.S. companies. President Xi and other senior Chinese officials have signaled their interest in improving the U.S.-China relationship through increased exports of U.S. goods and services to China.
The trade mission delegation will be composed of senior executives (equivalent to C-suite) from 12-25 U.S. firms.
All companies interested in participating in the Secretarial Trade Mission to China must complete and submit an application package for consideration to the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 12 and a maximum of 25 companies will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool.
After a company has been selected to participate in the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The fee schedule for the mission is below:
Participants selected for the trade mission will be expected to pay for the cost of all personal expenses, including, but not limited to, air travel, lodging, meals, communication, and incidentals unless otherwise noted. In the event the mission is cancelled, no personal expenses paid in anticipation of a trade mission will be reimbursed. However, participation fees for a cancelled trade mission will be reimbursed to the extent they have not already been expended in anticipation of the mission.
Business visas will be required. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are not included in the participation fee. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment will begin immediately and conclude no later than October 6, 2017. Applications can be completed online and are available at
The application deadline is October 6, 2017. Completed applications should be submitted online. Applications received after the October 6th deadline will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit. The Department of
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On June 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The review covers Truong Vinh Ltd. (Truong Vinh), Rich State, Inc. (Rich State), and Dicha Sombrilla Co., Ltd. (Dicha Sombrilla). The period of review (POR) is December 29, 2014, through June 30, 2016. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary results. No parties commented, and our final results remain unchanged from our preliminary results. The final results are listed in the section entitled “Final Results of Review,” below.
Effective September 28, 2017.
Mark Flessner or Chelsey Simonovich, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6312 or (202) 482-1979, respectively.
On June 6, 2017, the Department published the preliminary results of this review in the
The merchandise covered by this order is certain steel nails having a nominal shaft length not exceeding 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made from round wire and nails that are cut from flat-rolled steel. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or constructed of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and may have any type of surface finish, head type, shank, point type and shaft diameter. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, including but not limited to electroplating or hot dipping one or more times), phosphate, cement, and paint. Certain steel nails may have one or more surface finishes. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted. Screw-threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the nail using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond, needle, chisel and blunt or no point. Certain steel nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated in any manner using any material.
Excluded from the scope of this order are certain steel nails packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is less than 25. If packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, certain steel nails remain subject merchandise if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is equal to or greater than 25, unless otherwise excluded based on the other exclusions below.
Also excluded from the scope are certain steel nails with a nominal shaft length of one inch or less that are (a) a component of an unassembled article, (b) the total number of nails is sixty (60) or less, and (c) the imported unassembled article falls into one of the following eight groupings: (1) Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as windows, French-windows and their frames; (2) builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as doors and their frames and thresholds; (3) swivel seats with variable height adjustment; (4) seats that are convertible into beds (with the exception of those classifiable as garden seats or camping equipment); (5) seats of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials; (6) other seats with wooden frames (with the exception of seats of a kind used for aircraft or motor vehicles); (7) furniture (other than seats) of wood (with the exception of (i) medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture; and (ii) barbers' chairs and similar chairs, having rotating as well as both reclining and elevating movements); or (8) furniture (other than seats) of materials other than wood, metal, or plastics (
Also excluded from the scope of this order are steel nails that meet the specifications of Type I, Style 20 nails as identified in Tables 29 through 33 of ASTM Standard F1667 (2013 revision).
Also excluded from the scope of this order are nails suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, whether or not threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.20.00 and 7317.00.30.00.
Also excluded from the scope of this order are nails having a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 on the Rockwell Hardness C scale (HRC), a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth
Also excluded from the scope of this order are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made up of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side.
Also excluded from the scope of this order are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheading 7317.00.10.00.
Certain steel nails subject to this order are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.55.02, 7317.00.55.03, 7317.00.55.05, 7317.00.55.07, 7317.00.55.08, 7317.00.55.11, 7317.00.55.18, 7317.00.55.19, 7317.00.55.20, 7317.00.55.30, 7317.00.55.40, 7317.00.55.50, 7317.00.55.60, 7317.00.55.70, 7317.00.55.80, 7317.00.55.90, 7317.00.65.30, 7317.00.65.60 and 7317.00.75.00. Certain steel nails subject to these orders also may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7907.00.60.00, 8206.00.00.00 or other HTSUS subheadings.
While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
The Department received no comments concerning the
Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed for the final results within five days of the publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because we made no changes to these margins since the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the
Consistent with the Department's assessment practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, for entries that were not reported in U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during the administrative review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the Vietnam-wide rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under the exporter's case number (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Truong Vinh, Rich State, and Dicha Sombrilla, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin listed above; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Vietnamese and non-Vietnamese exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most-recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the exporter was reviewed; (3) for all Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the Vietnam-wide entity, which is 323.99 percent;
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) announces that the CPSC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for extension of approval of a collection of information associated with the CPSC's Safety Standard for
Written comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by October 30, 2017.
Submit comments about this request by email:
Charu S. Krishnan, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7221, or by email to:
CPSC has submitted the following currently approved collection of information to OMB for extension:
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Guidance document.
The Commission announces that it has approved a statement that provides guidance for manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, and consumers of certain consumer products that may contain harmful organohalogen flame retardants in an additive form. To protect consumers and children from the potential toxic effects of exposure to these chemicals, the Commission recommends that manufacturers of children's products, upholstered furniture sold for use in residences, mattresses (and mattress pads), and plastic casings surrounding electronics refrain from intentionally adding non-polymeric, organohalogen flame retardants (“OFRs”) to their products. Further, the Commission recommends that, before purchasing such products for resale, importers, distributors, and retailers obtain assurances from manufacturers that such products do not contain OFRs. Finally, the Commission recommends that consumers, especially those who are pregnant or with young children, inquire and obtain assurances from retailers that such products do not contain OFRs.
DeWane Ray, Deputy Director, Safety Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-7547, or email:
The text of the guidance document is as follows:
To date, the Commission has not banned household products containing OFRs or required precautionary labeling for such products. However, on September 20, 2017, based on the overwhelming scientific evidence presented to date, the Commission voted to grant the petition to initiate rulemaking under the FHSA and directed the staff to convene a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel pursuant to the procedures of section 28 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2077) to further study the effects of OFRs as a class of chemicals on consumers' health. Much of the evidence currently before the Commission suggests OFRs, as a class of chemicals, present a serious public health issue. Therefore, the Commission has serious concerns regarding the potential toxicity of OFRs, and the risks of exposure, particularly to vulnerable populations, to OFRs, from the four categories of products listed in the petition.
For these reasons, the Commission considers the use of OFRs in children's products, upholstered furniture sold for use in residences, mattresses and mattress pads, and plastic casings surrounding electronics to be ill-advised and encourages manufacturers to eliminate using them in such products. Further, the Commission recommends that, before, purchasing such products for resale, importers, distributors, and retailers obtain assurances from manufacturers that such products do not contain OFRs. Finally, the Commission recommends that consumers, especially those who are pregnant or with young children, inquire and obtain assurances from retailers that such products do not contain OFRs.
Department of the Air Force.
Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Record of Decision (ROD).
On September 8, 2017, the United States Air Force signed the ROD for the KC-46 Third Main Operating Base (MOB 3) Beddown. The ROD states the Air Force decision to beddown up to twelve (12) KC-46 Primary Aerospace Vehicles Authroized (PAA) in one squadron at Seymor Johnston Air Force Base, where the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) leads the Mobility Air Force Mission.
The decision was based on matters discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the KC-46 Third Main Operating Base (MOB 3) Beddown (
Mr. Hamid Kamalpour, AFCEC/CZN, 2261 Hughes Ave., Ste. 155, Lackland AFB, TX 78236-9853. Ph: (210) 925-2738.
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 17-01 with attached Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
Bahrain has requested the purchase of two (2) 35 meter Fast Patrol Boats, each equipped with one (1) MK38 Mod 3 25mm gun weapon system and one (1) SeaFLIR 380 HD Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) device. Additionally, Bahrain has requested communication equipment; support equipment; spare and repair parts; tools and test equipment; technical data and publications; personnel training; U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated cost is $60.25 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. This proposed sale of patrol boats will enhance the military capabilities of the Royal Bahrain Naval Force in the fulfillment of its self-defense, maritime security, and counter-terrorism missions.
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 contractors for systems listed include: 35 meter Fast Patrol Boats-SwiftShips, Morgan City, LA; MK38 Mod 3 25mm Gun Weapon System-BAE Systems, Louisville, KY; SeaFlir Model 380 HD Forward Looking Infra-Red Device-Flir Systems, Inc., Portland, OR. There are no known offset agreements proposed in conjunction with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips by U.S. Government and contractor representatives to participate in program and technical reviews plus boat reactivation and boat systems training in country, on a temporary basis, for a period of two years.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
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 17-49 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Eight (8) F414-GE-400 Engine Spares
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Canada has requested a possible sale of ten (10) F/A-18E Super Hornet aircraft, with F414-GE-400 engines; eight (8) F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft, with F414-GE-400 engines; eight (8) F414-GE-400 engine spares; twenty (20) AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars; twenty (20) M61A2 20MM gun systems; twenty-eight (28) AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets; fifteen (15) AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods; twenty (20) Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems-Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS-JTRS); thirty (30) Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS); twenty-eight (28) AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Countermeasures Systems; one hundred thirty (130) LAU-127E/A and or F/A Guided Missile Launchers; twenty-two (22) AN/AYK-29 Distributed Targeting System (DTS); twenty-two (22) AN/AYK-29 Distributed Targeting Processor (DTP); one hundred (100) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Tactical Missiles; thirty (30) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); eight (8) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Special Air Training Missiles (NATM); twenty (20) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Tactical Guidance Units; sixteen (16) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II CATM Guidance Units. Also included in this sale are AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVG); AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems; AN/ARC-210 Communication System; AN/APX-111 Combined Interrogator Transponder; AN/ALE-55 Towed Decoys; Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS); AN/PYQ-10C Simple Key Loader (SKL); Data Transfer Unit (DTU); Accurate Navigation (ANAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation; KIV-78 Duel Channel Encryptor, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF); CADS/PADS; Instrument Landing System (ILS); Aircraft Armament Equipment (AAE); High Speed Video Network (HSVN) Digital Video Recorder (HDVR); Launchers (LAU-115D/A, LAU-116B/A, LAU-118A); flight test services; site survey; aircraft ferry; auxiliary fuel tanks; aircraft spares; containers; storage and preservation; transportation; aircrew and maintenance training; training aids and equipment, devices and spares and repair parts; weapon system support and test equipment; technical data Engineering Change Proposals; technical publications and documentation; software; avionics software support; software development/integration; system integration and testing; U.S. Government and contractor engineering technical and logistics support; Repair of Repairable (RoR); repair and return warranties; other technical assistance and support equipment; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total case value is $5.23 billion.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security
The proposed sale of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft will improve Canada's capability to meet current and future warfare threats and provide greater security for its critical infrastructure. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft will supplement and eventually replace a portion of the Canadian Air Force's aging fighter aircraft. Canada 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 contractors will be: Boeing Company, St. Louis, MO; Northrop Grumman, Los Angeles, CA; Raytheon, El Segundo, CA; General Electric, Lynn, MA; and Raytheon Missile Systems Company, Tucson, AZ. The Government of Canada has advised that it will negotiate offset agreements with key U.S. contractors.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of contractor representatives to Canada on and intermittent basis over the life of the case to support delivery of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft and weapons and to provide supply support management, inventory control and equipment familiarization.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a single-seat and two-seat, twin engine, multi-mission fighter/attack aircraft that can operate from either aircraft carriers or land bases. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fills a variety of roles: Air superiority, fighter escort, suppression of enemy air defenses, reconnaissance, forward air control, close and deep air support, and day and night strike missions. The F/A-18E/F Weapons System is considered SECRET.
2. The AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar System is classified SECRET. The radar provides the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft with all-weather, multi-mission capability for performing air-to-air and air-to-ground targeting and attack. Air-to-air modes provide the capability for all-aspect target detection, long-range search and track, automatic target acquisition, and tracking of multiple targets. Air-to-surface attack modes provide high-resolution ground mapping navigation, weapon delivery, and sensor cueing. The system component hardware (Antenna, Transmitter, Radar Data Processor, and Power Supply) is UNCLASSIFIED. The Receiver-Exciter hardware is CONFIDENTIAL. The radar Operational Flight Program (OFP) is classified SECRET. Documentation provided with the AN/APG-79 radar set is classified SECRET.
3. The AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Set is classified CONFIDENTIAL. The AN/ALR-67(V)3 provides the F/A-18E/F aircrew with radar threat warnings by detecting and evaluating friendly and hostile radar frequency threat emitters and providing identification and status information about the emitters to on-board Electronic Warfare (EW) equipment and the aircrew. The Operational Flight Program (OFP) and User Data Files (UDF) used in the AN/ALR-67(V)3 are classified SECRET. Those software programs contain threat parametric data used to identify and establish priority of detected radar emitters.
4. The Multifunctional Informational Distribution System-Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS-JTRS) is classified CONFIDENTIAL. The MIDS-JTRS is a secure data and voice communication network using Link-16 architecture. The system provides enhanced situational awareness, positive identification of participants within the network, secure fighter-to-fighter connectivity, secure voice capability, and ARN-118 TACAN functionality. It provides three major functions: Air Control, Wide Area Surveillance, and Fighter-to-Fighter. The MIDS-JTRS can be used to transfer data in Air-to-Air, Air-to-Surface, and Air-to-Ground scenarios. The MIDS Enhanced Interference Blanking Unit (EIBU) provides validation and verification of equipment and concept. EIBU enhances input/output signal capacity of the MIDS-JTRS and addresses parts obsolescence.
5. The Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) is a modified HGU-55/P helmet that incorporates a visor-projected Heads-Up Display (HUD) to cue weapons and aircraft sensors to air and ground targets. In close combat, a pilot must currently align the aircraft to shoot at a target. JHMCS allows the pilot to simply look at a target to shoot. This system projects visual targeting and aircraft performance information on the back of the helmet's visor, enabling the pilot to monitor this information without interrupting his field of view through the cockpit canopy. The system uses a magnetic transmitter unit fixed to the pilot's seat and a magnetic field probe mounted on the helmet to define helmet pointing positioning. A Helmet Vehicle Interface (HVI) interacts with the aircraft system bus to provide signal generation for the helmet display. This provides significant improvement for close combat targeting and engagement. Hardware is UNCLASSIFIED; technical data and documents are classified up to SECRET.
6. The AN/ALQ-214 is an advanced airborne Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM) programmable modular automated system capable of intercepting, identifying, processing received radar signals (pulsed and continuous) and applying an optimum countermeasures technique in the direction of the radar signal, thereby improving individual aircraft probability of survival from a variety of surface-to-air and air-to-air Radio Frequency (RF) threats. The system operates in a standalone or Electronic Warfare (EW) suite mode. In the EW suite mode, the AN/ALQ-214 operates in a fully coordinated mode with the towed dispensable decoy, Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), and the onboard radar in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in a coordinated, non-interference manner sharing information for enhanced information. The AN/ALQ-214 was designed to operate in a high-density Electromagnetic Hostile Environment with the ability to identify and counter a wide variety of multiple threats, including those with Doppler characteristics. Hardware within the AN/ALQ-214 is classified CONFIDENTIAL.
7. LAU-127E/A and/or F/A Guided Missile Launchers designed to enable F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft to carry and launch missiles. It provides the electrical and mechanical interface between the missile and launch aircraft as well as the two-way data transfer between missile and cockpit controls and displays to support preflight orientation and control circuits to prepare and launch the missile.
8. The AIM-9X-2 Block II Sidewinder missile represents a substantial increase in missile acquisition and kinematics performance over the AIM-9M and
9. The AIM-9X-2 will result in the transfer of sensitive technology and information. The equipment, hardware, and documentation are classified CONFIDENTIAL. The software and operation performance are classified SECRET. The seeker/guidance control section and the target detector are CONFIDENTIAL and contain sensitive state-of-the-art technology. Manuals and technical documentation that are necessary or support operational use and organizational management are classified up to SECRET. Performance and operating logic of the counter-countermeasures circuits are classified SECRET. The hardware, software, and data identified are classified to protect vulnerabilities, design and performance parameters and similar critical information.
10. The AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER Pod is a multi-sensor, electro-optical targeting pod incorporating infrared, low-light television camera, laser range finder/target designator, and laser spot tracker. It is used to provide navigation and targeting for military aircraft in adverse weather and using precision-guided weapons such as laser-guided bombs. It offers much greater target resolution and imagery accuracy than previous systems.
11. The AN/PVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVG) provide imagery sufficient for an aviator to complete night time missions down to starlight and extreme low light conditions. The AN/PVS-9 is designed to satisfy the F/A-18E/F mission requirements for covert night combat, engagement, and support. The third generation light amplification tubes provide a high-performance, image-intensification system for optimized F/A-18E/F night flying at terrain-masking altitudes. The AN/PVS-9 NVG's are classified as UNCLASSIFIED but with restrictions on release of technologies.
12. The AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Systems is classified SECRET. The AN/ALE-47 is a threat-adaptive dispensing system that dispenses chaff, flares, and expendable jammers for self-protection against airborne and ground-based Radio Frequency (RF) and Infrared Threats. The AN/ALE-47 Programmer is classified CONFIDENTIAL. The Operational Flight Program (OFP) and Mission Data Files (MDF) used in the AN/ALE-47 are classified SECRET. Those software programs contain algorithms used to calculate the best defense against specific threats.
13. The AN/ARC-210 Radio's Line-of-sight data transfer rates up to 80 k/s in a 25 kHz channel creating high-speed communication of critical situational awareness information for increased mission effectiveness. Software that is reprogrammable in the field via Memory Loader/Verifier Software making flexible use for multiple missions. The AN/ARC-210 has embedded software with programmable cryptography for secure communications.
14. The AN/APX-111 Combined Interrogator/Transponder (CIT) with the Conformal Antenna System (CAS) is classified SECRET. The CIT is a complete MARK-XII identification system compatible with Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Modes 1, 2, 3/A, C and 4 (secure). A single slide-in module that can be customized to the unique cryptographic functions for a specific country provides the systems secure mode capabilities. As a transponder, the CIT is capable of replying to interrogation modes 1, 2, 3/A, C (altitude) and secure mode 4. The requirement is to upgrade Canada's Combined Interrogator/Transponder (CIT) AN/APX-111 (V) IFF system software to implement Mode Select (Mode S) capabilities. Beginning in early 2005, EUROCONTROL mandated the civil community in Europe to transition to a Mode S only system and for all aircraft to be compliant by 2009. The Mode S Beacon System is a combined data link and Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) system that was standardized in 1985 by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Mode S provides air surveillance using a data link with a permanent unique aircraft address. Selective Interrogation provides higher data integrity, reduced Radio Frequency (RF) interference levels, increased air traffic capacity, and adds air-to-ground data link.
15. The AN/ALE-55 Towed Decoy improves aircraft survivability by providing an enhanced, coordinated on-board/off-board countermeasure response to enemy threats.
16. The Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) is classified SECRET. JMPS will provide mission planning capability for support of military aviation operations. It will also provide support for unit-level mission planning for all phases of military flight operations and have the capability to provide necessary mission data for the aircrew. JMPS will support the downloading of data to electronics data transfer devices for transfer to aircraft and weapon systems. A JMPS for a specific aircraft type will consist of basic planning tools called the Joint Mission Planning Environment (JMPE) mated with a Unique Planning Component (UPC) provided by the aircraft program. In addition UPCs will be required for specific weapons, communication devices, and moving map displays. The JMPS will be tailored to the specific releasable configuration for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
17. AN/PYQ-10(C) is the next generation of the currently fielded AN/CYZ-10 Data Transfer Device (DTD). The AN/PYQ-10(C) provides automated, secure and user-friendly methods for managing and distributing cryptographic key material, Signal Operating Instructions (SOI), and Electronic Protection data. This course introduces some of the basic components and activities associated with the AN/PYQ-10(C) in addition to hands-on training. Learners will become familiar with the security features of the Simple Key Loader (SKL), practice the initial setup of the SKL, and will receive and distribute electronic keys using the SKL. Hardware is considered CLASSIFIED.
18. Data Transfer Unit (DTU) with CRYPTO Type 1 and Ground Encryption Device (GED). The DTU (MU-1164(C)/A) has an embedded DAR-400ES. Both versions of the DAR-400 are type 1 devices.
19. Accurate Navigation (ANAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) also includes Key loading Installation and Facility Charges. The ANAV is a 24-channel SAASM based pulse-per-second GPS receiver built for next generation GPS technology.
20. KIV-78 Dual Channel Encryptor Mode 4/Mode 5 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Crypto applique includes aircraft installs and initial spares, to ensure proper identification of aircraft during coalition efforts. The KIV-78 provides cryptographic and time-of-day services for a Mark XIIA (Mode 4 and 5) IFF Combined Interrogator/Transponder (CIT), individual interrogator, and individual transponder. Hardware is considered CLASSIFIED.
21. High Speed Video Network (HSVN) Digital Video Recorder (HDVR) with CRYPTO Type 1 and Ground
22. If a technologically advanced adversary obtains knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
23. A determination has been made that the Government of Canada can provide substantially 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.
24. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Canada.
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 16-60 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 a possible sale of nineteen (19) F-16V Aircraft; nineteen (19) M61 Vulcan 20mm Gun Systems; twenty-two (22) F-16V F-110-GE-129 Engines (includes 3 spares); twenty-two (22) APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radars (includes 3 spares); twenty-two (22) Modular Mission Computers (includes 3 spares); twenty-two (22) Embedded Global Navigation Systems/LN260 EGI (includes 3 spares); twenty-two (22) Improved Programmable Display Generators (iPDG) (includes 3 spares); and thirty-eight (38) LAU-129 Launchers. This sale also includes nineteen (19) AN/ALQ-211 AIDEWS Systems, thirty-eight (38) LAU-118A Launchers, forty-two (42) AN/ARC-238 SINCGARS Radio or equivalent, twenty-two (22) AN/APX-126 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) system or equivalent, twenty-two (22) cryptographic appliques, secure communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, simulators, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor technical support services, containers, missile support and test equipment, original equipment manufacturer integration and test, U.S. Government and contractor technical support and training services, site survey, design, construction studies/analysis/services, associated 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 $2.785 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 Force (RBAF) plays a significant role in Bahrain's defense.
The proposed sale improves Bahrain's capability to meet current and future threats. Bahrain will use the capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. This purchase of F-16Vs will improve interoperability with United States and other regional allies. Bahrain employs 20 older F-16 Block 40s and will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of these aircraft will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be Lockheed Martin. There are no know offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of at least ten (10) additional U.S. Government representatives and approximately seventy-five (75) contractor 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 involves the release of sensitive technology to Bahrain. The F-16C/D Block V weapon system is unclassified, except as noted below. The aircraft uses the F-16 airframe and features advanced avionics and systems. It contains the General Electric F-110-129 engine, AN/APG-83 radar, digital flight control system, internal and external electronic warfare (EW) equipment, Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF), operational flight trainer, and software computer programs.
2. Sensitive or classified (up to SECRET) elements of the proposed F-16V include hardware, accessories, components, and associated software: AN/APG-83 AESA Radars, Modular Mission Computers, Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF), cryptographic appliques, Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System, Modular Mission Computer (MMC), AN/ALQ-211 AIDEWS Systems, LAU-129 Launchers, Modular Mission Computers, and Improved Programmable Display Generators (iPDGs). 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,
3. The AN/APG-83 is an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar upgrade for the F-16V. It includes higher processor power, higher transmission power, more sensitive receiver electronics, 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) System provides passive radar warning, wide spectrum RF jamming, and control and management of the entire EW system. 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. The secure voice communications radio system is considered unclassified, but may employ cryptographic technology that is classified SECRET. Classified elements include operating characteristics, parameters, technical data, and keying material.
6. An Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) is a system capable of transmitting and interrogating Mode V. It is UNCLASSIFIED unless Mode IV or Mode V operational evaluator parameters are loaded into the equipment that is classified SECRET. Classified elements of the AIFF system include software object code, operating characteristics, parameters, and technical data.
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 LAU-129 Guided Missile Launcher is capable of launching a single AIM-9 (Sidewinder) family of missile or a single AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The LAU-129 provides mechanical and electrical interface between missile and aircraft. The LAU-129 system is UNCLASSIFIED.
9. 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.
10. 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 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.
11. M61A1 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.
12. Software, hardware, and other data or 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
16. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Bahrain.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 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 30, 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 Lauren Angelo, 202-245-7276.
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.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 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 30, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Take notice that on September 20, 2017, East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. filed an application for cost-based revenue requirements schedule for reactive power production capability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
Aquenergy operates the project in a run-of-river mode, with no useable storage or flood control capacity. A continuous minimum flow of 15 cubic feet per second (cfs) or inflow, whichever is less, is released into the bypassed area. The minimum flow is
Aquenergy proposes to continue to operate and maintain the Piedmont Project as is required in the existing license, and to develop canoe portage facilities. No changes to project operations are proposed. Other than the development of canoe portage facilities, no new construction or major project modifications are proposed.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST or MOTION TO INTERVENE; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
Pelzer Hydro and Consolidated Hydro (co-licensees) operate the project in a run-of-river mode, with no useable storage or flood control capacity. There are no minimum flow requirements downstream of the dam. The project operates under an estimated average head of 25 feet, including the 4-foot spillway flashboards. The impoundment
The co-licensees propose to continue to operate and maintain the Upper Pelzer Project as is required in the existing license, and to develop canoe portage facilities. The co-licensees also propose to release a continuous minimum flow of 15 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, from the project dam in order to maintain aquatic habitat and water quality conditions in the 115-foot-long reach between the dam and the upstream powerhouse tailrace.
Other than the development of canoe portage facilities, no new construction or major project modifications are proposed.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The Lower Pelzer Project consists of: (1) A 696-foot-long by 40-foot-high granite masonry dam, consisting of (i) a 310-foot-long spillway section topped with 4-foot wooden flashboards, (ii) a 40-foot-long non-overflow section with two 10-foot-wide by 6-foot-high gates, and (iii) a 236-foot-long non-overflow section; (2) an 80-acre impoundment at a normal pool elevation of 693 feet mean sea level; (3) a 110-foot-long by 14-foot-wide intake, protected by a trashrack structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing, controlling flow to the powerhouse through five, 10.5-foot-wide square gates; (4) a 110-foot-long by 68-foot-wide brick powerhouse integral with the dam, containing 5 horizontal Francis turbine generating units that total 3,300 kilowatts (kW); (5) a 600-foot-long by 110-foot-wide tailrace; (6) a 3-mile-long, 3,300-volt transmission line connecting the powerhouse to the grid via a 7.2/12.47 kilovolt transformer; and (7) appurtenant facilities.
Pelzer Hydro and Consolidated Hydro (co-licensees) operate the project in a run-of-river mode, with no storage or flood control capacity. A continuous minimum flow of 140 cubic feet per second (cfs) or inflow, whichever is less, is released into the bypassed reach. The minimum flow is achieved via a sluice gate in the dam. The project operates under an estimated average head of 40 feet, including the 4-foot spillway flashboards. The impoundment water surface elevation is maintained at 693
The co-licensees propose to continue to operate and maintain the Lower Pelzer Project as is required in the existing license, and to develop canoe portage facilities. The co-licensees also propose to remove the existing three-mile-long, 3,300-volt overhead transmission line, which is no longer in use, from the project boundary under a new license. Instead, the project would use a 165-foot-long, 3,300-volt transmission line that interconnects with the grid at an applicant-owned transformer.
No changes to project operations are proposed. Other than the development of canoe portage facilities, no new construction or major project modifications are proposed.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST or MOTION TO INTERVENE; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collections were previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until October 30, 2017.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of any proposed information collection instrument and instructions, or desire any other additional information, please contact Manny Cabeza, Counsel, FDIC Legal Division either by mail at Room MB-3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429; by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collections of information are encouraged. All comments received will become a matter of public record. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
Burden Estimate:
The foregoing assumptions result in the following estimates:
The table above now includes the burden estimate for section 1002.13 that was inadvertently omitted from prior information collection submissions. Section 1002.13(a), to monitor compliance, requires lenders to collect demographic information from loan applicants either on the application form or on a separate form. Section 1002.13(b) & (c) involve disclosing to loan applicants the purpose and use of this demographic information.
The burden table also deletes the prior estimated burden for 1002.15 which only describes the eligibility for incentives for self-testing and self-correction and does not involve any disclosures, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.
The FDIC has updated its estimate of the number of burden hours required to complete each task. It has estimated a burden of one to three minutes for most tasks (0.017 to 0.05 hours), a figure not significantly different from the prior estimates. However, the FDIC believes that the prior burden estimates for self-testing were greatly overstated. Whereas previously, self-testing under section 1002.12 was estimated to require two (2) hours to complete, the FDIC believes the recordkeeping requirement articulated
2.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. There is an overall reduction in burden hours which is the result of (1) economic fluctuation reflected by a decrease in the number of FDIC-supervised institutions and (2) a decrease in the number of flood insurance policies nationally. In particular, the number of respondents and the frequency of response (number of loans) have decreased while the hours per response remain the same.
FEMA reported there were 4,983,954 flood insurance policies in effect with a total insured value of $1,238,657,149,400.
FDIC Call Report data showed that as of March 31, 2017, there were a total of 5,790 FDIC-insured institutions with a total of $4.25 trillion in 1-4 family; multifamily; nonfarm, nonresidential, and agricultural loans secured by real estate. As of March 31, 2017, there were 3,718 FDIC-regulated institutions with a total value of about $1.19 trillion in these loans. Based on the foregoing, we estimate that FDIC-regulated banks hold 27.9% of these assets.
The Federal Reserve Board reported $14.41 trillion in mortgage debt outstanding in the U.S., with $4.63 trillion (32.4%) held by depository institutions.
In the absence of any data on the number of real estate loans with flood insurance at any bank, we resort to apportion 32.4% of the number of flood insurance policies (1,614,801) to commercial banks, and 27.9% of those to FDIC-regulated institutions (451,177). Because the value of property varies greatly between different geographical regions and different banks, it is doubtful that this estimation of the number of policies is accurate. However, there exists no other reasonable method for deriving the number of policies at each bank given available data.
Next, we apportioned the 451,177 flood insurance policies to each FDIC-regulated institution according to its share of real estate loans to total real estate loans. The resulting apportionment results in an average of 121 policies per bank, and a median of 30 policies per bank. Because the average is skewed by the large number of policies at large banks, we believe the median is a better measure for calculating burden hours.
Our subject-matter experts (SMEs) for this rule believe that the total burden to the public for complying with this rule is 1.0 hours per policy. We find four PRA related tasks in this rule: (1) Disclosure to Borrowers, (2) Disclosure to Servicers, (3) Reporting to FEMA of Changes in Coverage, and (4) Recordkeeping for tasks 1-3 above. We assume that Recordkeeping will comprise
With 3,718 respondents holding a median of 30 policies and 1 hour of burden per policy, we calculate a total burden of 111,540 hours. This burden is apportioned to each task as shown in Table 1 above.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval,
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 application also will 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 HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). 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 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). 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.
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Notice.
The FTC intends to ask the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to extend for an additional three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Business Opportunity Rule (“Rule”). That clearance expires on January 31, 2018.
Comments must be submitted by November 27, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Requests for additional information should be addressed to Christine M. Todaro, Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., CC-8528, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3711.
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing clearance for the information collection requirements contained in the Business Opportunity Rule, 16 CFR part 437 (OMB Control Number 3084-0142).
The FTC invites comments on: (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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Business Opportunity Rule requires business opportunity sellers to furnish to prospective purchasers a disclosure document that provides information relating to the seller, the seller's business, the nature of the proposed business opportunity, as well as additional information regarding any claims about actual or potential sales, income, or profits for a prospective business opportunity purchaser. The seller must also preserve information that forms a reasonable basis for such claims. These disclosure and recordkeeping requirements are subject to the PRA.
The Rule is designed to ensure that prospective purchasers of a business opportunity receive information that will help them evaluate the opportunity that is presented to them. Sellers must disclose five key items of information in a simple, one-page document:
• The seller's identifying information;
• whether the seller makes a claim about the purchaser's likely earnings (and, if the seller checks the “yes” box, the seller must provide information supporting any such claims);
• whether the seller, its affiliates or key personnel have been involved in certain legal actions (and, if yes, the seller must provide a separate list of those actions);
• whether the seller has a cancellation or refund policy (and, if yes, the seller must provide a separate document stating the material terms of such policies); and
• a list of persons who bought the business opportunity within the previous three years.
Misrepresentations and omissions are prohibited under the Rule, and for sales conducted in languages other than English, all disclosures must be provided in the language in which the sale is conducted.
Subject to public comment to shed further light, the FTC retains its respondent population estimates from its prior OMB clearance for the information collection requirements
The burden estimates for compliance will vary depending on the particular business opportunity seller's prior experience with the Rule. Commission staff estimates that the projected 2,745 existing business opportunity sellers will require no more than approximately two hours to update the disclosure document [5,490 total hours]. Staff further projects that the estimated 305 new business opportunity sellers will require no more than approximately five hours to develop the disclosure document [1,525 total hours]. Both existing and new business opportunity sellers will require approximately one hour to file and store records [3,050 total hours], for a cumulative total of 10,065 hours [5,490 hours + 1,525 hours + 3,050 hours] per year to meet the Rule's disclosure and recordkeeping requirements.
Labor costs are determined by applying applicable wage rates to associated burden hours. Commission staff assumes that an attorney likely would prepare or update the disclosure document at an estimated hourly rate of $250. Accordingly, staff estimates that cumulative labor costs are $2,516,250 [10,065 hours × $250 per hour].
Business opportunity sellers must also incur costs to print and distribute the single-page disclosure document, plus any attachments. These costs vary based upon the length of the attachments and the number of copies produced to meet the expected demand. Commission staff estimates that 3,050 business opportunity sellers will print and mail approximately 1,000 disclosure documents per year at a cost of $1.00 per document, for a total cost of $3,050,000. Conceivably, many business opportunity sellers will elect to furnish disclosures electronically; thus, the total cost could be much less.
The Rule requires that sellers update their disclosures. The costs associated with translating the disclosures will vary depending upon a business opportunity seller's prior experience with the Rule and the language the seller uses to market the opportunity. For example, existing and new business opportunity sellers marketing in Spanish will not incur costs to translate the disclosure document as Appendices A and B to the Rule provide, respectively, illustrations of the requisite disclosure documents in English and Spanish. Existing sellers, regardless of the non-English language used to present disclosures, may incur translation costs to update the document. New entrants that market business opportunities in languages other than English or Spanish (in addition to an assumed use of disclosure documents in English) will incur translation costs to translate Appendix A from English and to enter equivalent responses in these other languages.
As stated above, using assumptions informed by Census data (see footnote 2), FTC staff estimates that 165 sellers market business opportunities in Spanish and an additional 95 sellers market in languages other than English or Spanish. This includes an estimated 10 new entrants in the latter sub-category (based on the assumption that 10% yearly of a given group consists of new entrants with an equal offset for departing business entities). Those new entrants will incur initial translation costs to draft a disclosure document consistent with Appendix A to the Rule.
There are 485 words in Appendix A to the Rule. Therefore, the total cost burden to translate the disclosure document for the 10 new business opportunity sellers marketing in a language other than English or Spanish will be approximately $849 [10 sellers × (17.5 cents
For purposes of this PRA analysis, staff assumes that both new and existing business opportunity sellers marketing business opportunities in languages other than English [260 sellers]: (1) Are marketing in both English and another language; (2) are not incorporating any existing materials into their disclosure document; (3) have been the subject of civil or criminal legal actions; (4) are making earnings claims; (5) have a refund or cancellation policy; and (6) because of all of the above assumptions, require approximately 250 words (approximately one standard, double-spaced page) to translate their updates, in the case of existing business opportunity sellers, or supply and translate their initial disclosures, in the case of new business opportunity sellers. Therefore, the total cost to translate the updates or to translate from English the initial disclosures is approximately $11,375 [260 sellers × (17.5 cents per word × 250 words)].
Thus, cumulative estimated non-labor costs are $3,062,224 ($3,050,000 + $849 + $11,375).
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before November 27, 2017. Write “Business Opportunity Rule Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P114408” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the
If you file your comment on paper, write “Business Opportunity Rule Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P114408” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before November 27, 2017. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
In the QPR, Lead Agencies are asked about the State's or Territory's progress in meeting its goals as reported in the CCDF Plan, and provide available data on the results of those activities. Specifically, this report will: (1) Ensure accountability for the use of CCDF quality funds, including a set-aside for quality infant and toddler care that begins in FY 2017; (2) track progress toward meeting State- and Territory-set indicators and benchmarks for improvement of child care quality per what they described in their CCDF Plans; (3) summarize how the Lead Agency is building a progression of professional development for child care providers as envisioned in the CCDBG Act of 2014 and CCDF final rule; and (4) inform federal technical assistance efforts and decisions regarding strategic use of quality funds.
The Office of Child Care (OCC) has given thoughtful consideration to the comments received during the 60-day Public Comment Period and has revised the QPR to better align with the new program requirements made under the CCDBG Act of 2014 and the final rule. The revised document also contains additional guidance and clarification where appropriate in order to improve the quality of information that is being collected.
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the fee rate for using a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher for fiscal year (FY) 2018. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to determine and collect rare pediatric disease priority review user fees for certain applications for review of human drug or biological products when those applications use a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher. These vouchers are awarded to the sponsors of rare pediatric disease product applications that meet all of the requirements of this program and that are submitted 90 days or more after July 9, 2012, upon FDA approval of such applications. The amount of the fee for using a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher is determined each FY, based on the difference between the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous FY and the average cost incurred in the review of an application that is not subject to priority review in the previous FY. This notice establishes the rare pediatric disease priority review fee rate for FY 2018 and outlines the payment procedures for such fees.
Robert J. Marcarelli, Office of Financial Management, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14202F, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7223.
Section 908 of FDASIA (Pub. L. 112-144) added section 529 to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff). In section 529 of the FD&C Act, Congress encouraged development of new human drugs and biological products for prevention and treatment of certain rare pediatric diseases by offering additional incentives for obtaining FDA approval of such products. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act, the sponsor of an eligible human drug application submitted 90 days or more after July 9, 2012, for a rare pediatric disease (as defined in section 529(a)(3)) shall receive a priority review voucher upon approval of the rare pediatric disease product application. The recipient of a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher may either use the voucher for a future human drug application submitted to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1)) or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a)), or transfer (including by sale) the voucher to another party. The voucher may be transferred (including by sale) repeatedly until it ultimately is used for a human drug application submitted to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act. A priority review is a review conducted with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of 6 months after the receipt or filing date, depending on the type of application. Information regarding PDUFA goals is available at
The applicant that uses a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher is entitled to a priority review of its eligible human drug application, but must pay FDA a rare pediatric disease priority review user fee in addition to any user fee required by PDUFA for the application. Information regarding the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher program is available at:
This notice establishes the rare pediatric disease priority review fee rate for FY 2018 at $2,830,579 and outlines FDA's procedures for payment of rare pediatric disease priority review user fees. This rate is effective on October 1, 2017, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2018.
Under section 529(c)(2) of the FD&C Act, the amount of the rare pediatric disease priority review user fee is determined each fiscal year based on the difference between the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year, and the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application that is not subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year.
A priority review is a review conducted with a PDUFA goal date of 6 months after the receipt or filing date, depending on the type of application. Under the PDUFA goals letter, FDA has committed to reviewing and acting on 90 percent of the applications granted
FDA is setting a fee for FY 2018, which is to be based on standard cost data from the previous fiscal year, FY 2017. However, the FY 2017 submission cohort has not been closed out yet, thus the cost data for FY 2017 are not complete. The latest year for which FDA has complete cost data is FY 2016. Furthermore, because FDA has never tracked the cost of reviewing applications that get priority review as a separate cost subset, FDA estimated this cost based on other data that the Agency has tracked. FDA uses data that the Agency estimates and publishes on its Web site each year—standard costs for review. FDA does not publish a standard cost for “the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year.” However, we expect all such applications would contain clinical data. The standard cost application categories with clinical data that FDA publishes each year are: (1) New drug applications (NDAs) for a new molecular entity (NME) with clinical data and (2) biologics license applications (BLAs).
The standard cost worksheets for FY 2016 show standard costs (rounded to the nearest hundred dollars) of $5,929,100 for an NME NDA, and $4,887,100 for a BLA. Based on these standard costs, the total cost to review the 49 applications in these two categories in FY 2016 (27 NME NDAs with clinical data and 22 BLAs) was $267,601,900. (
For the FY 2018 fee, FDA will need to adjust the FY 2016 incremental cost by the average amount by which FDA's average costs increased in the 3 years prior to FY 2017, to adjust the FY 2016 amount for cost increases in FY 2017. That adjustment, published in the
The fee rate for FY 2018 is set out in Table 1:
Under section 529(c)(4)(A) of the FD&C Act, the priority review user fee is due (
The rare pediatric disease priority review fee established in the new fee schedule must be paid for any application that is received on or after October 1, 2017. In order to comply with this requirement, the sponsor must notify FDA 90 days prior to submission of the human drug application that is the subject of a priority review voucher of an intent to submit the human drug application, including the date on which the sponsor intends to submit the application.
Upon receipt of this notification, FDA will issue an invoice to the sponsor who has incurred a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher fee. The invoice will include instructions on how to pay the fee via wire transfer or check.
As noted in section II, if a sponsor uses a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher for a human drug application, the sponsor would incur the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher fee in addition to any PDUFA fee that is required for the application. The sponsor would need to follow
Payment must be made in U.S. currency by electronic check, check, bank draft, wire transfer, credit card, or U.S. postal money order payable to the order of the Food and Drug Administration. The preferred payment method is online using electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH) also known as eCheck). Secure electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at
If paying with a paper check the invoice number should be included on the check, followed by the words “Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review.” All paper checks must be in U.S. currency from a U.S. bank made payable and mailed to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979107, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
If checks are sent by a courier that requests a street address, the courier can deliver the checks to: U.S. Bank, Attention: Government Lockbox 979107, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (
If paying by wire transfer, please reference your invoice number when completing your transfer. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. If the financial institution charges a wire transfer fee it is required to add that amount to the payment to ensure that the invoice is paid in full. The account information is as follows: U.S. Dept. of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Account Number: 75060099, Routing Number: 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33, Beneficiary: FDA, 8455 Colesville Rd., 14th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
The following reference is on display in the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by October 30, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 342) deems a food to be adulterated, in part, if the food bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to health. Section 301(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a)) prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of adulterated food. Under section 404 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 344), our regulations require registration of food processing establishments, filing of process or other data, and maintenance of processing and production records for acidified foods and thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers. These requirements are intended to ensure safe manufacturing, processing, and packing procedures, and to permit us to verify that these procedures are being followed. Improperly processed low-acid foods present life-threatening hazards if contaminated with foodborne microorganisms, especially
To protect the public health, our regulations require that each firm that manufactures, processes, or packs acidified foods or thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers for introduction into interstate commerce register the establishment with us using Form FDA 2541 (§§ 108.25(c)(1) and 108.35(c)(2) (21 CFR 108.25(c)(1) and 108.35(c)(2)). In addition to registering the plant, each firm is required to provide data on the processes used to produce these foods, using Forms FDA 2541d, FDA 2541e,
Regulations in parts 108, 113, and 114 (21 CFR parts 108, 113, and 114) require firms to maintain records showing adherence to the substantive requirements of the regulations. These records must be made available to FDA on request. Firms also must document corrective actions when process controls and procedures do not fall within specified limits (§§ 113.89, 114.89, and 114.100(c)); to report any instance of potential health-endangering spoilage, process deviation, or contamination with microorganisms where any lot of the food has entered distribution in commerce (§§ 108.25(d) and 108.35(d) and (e)); and to develop and keep on file plans for recalling products that may endanger the public health (§§ 108.25(e) and 108.35(f)). To permit lots to be traced after distribution, acidified foods and thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers must be marked with an identifying code (§ 113.60(c)) (thermally processed foods) and § 114.80(b) (acidified foods)).
The records of processing information are periodically reviewed during factory inspections by FDA to verify fulfillment of the requirements in parts 113 or 114. Scheduled thermal processes are examined and reviewed to determine their adequacy to protect public health. In the event of a public health emergency, records are used to pinpoint potentially hazardous foods rapidly and thus limit recall activity to affected lots.
As described in our regulations, processors may obtain the paper versions of Forms FDA 2541, FDA 2541d, FDA 2541e, FDA 2541f, and FDA 2541g by contacting us at a particular address or by visiting
Although we encourage commercial processors to use the electronic submission system for plant registration and process filing, we will continue to make paper-based forms available. To standardize the burden associated with process filing, regardless of whether the process filing is submitted electronically or using a paper form, we are offering the public the opportunity to use four forms, each of which pertains to a specific type of commercial processing and is available both on the electronic submission system and as a paper-based form. The electronic submission system and paper-based form “mirror” each other to the extent practicable. The four process filing forms are as follows:
• Form FDA 2541d (Food Process Filing for Low-Acid Retorted Method) (Ref. 2);
• Form FDA 2541e (Food Process Filing for Acidified Method) (Ref. 3);
• Form FDA 2541f (Food Process Filing for Water Activity/Formulation Control Method) (Ref. 4); and
• Form FDA 2541g (Food Process Filing for Low-Acid Aseptic Systems) (Ref. 5).
At this time, the paper-based versions of the four forms and their instructions are all available for review as references to this document (Refs. 2 through 5) or at
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA bases its estimate of the number of respondents in table 1 on registrations, process filings, and reports received over the past 3 years. The hours per response reporting estimates are based on our experience with similar programs and information received from industry. The reporting burden for §§ 108.25(d) and 108.35(d) and (e) is minimal because notification of spoilage, process deviation, or contamination of product in distribution occurs less than once a year. Most firms discover these problems before the product is distributed, and are therefore not required to report the occurrence. We estimate that we will receive one report annually under §§ 108.25(d) and 108.35(d) and (e). The report is expected to take 4 hours per response, for a total of 4 hours.
FDA bases its estimate of 10,392 recordkeepers in table 2 on its records of the number of registered firms, excluding firms that were inactive or out of business, yet still registered. To avoid double-counting, we have not included estimates for §§ 108.25(g), 108.35(c)(2)(ii), and 108.35(h) because they merely cross-reference recordkeeping requirements contained in parts 113 and 114 and have been accounted for in the recordkeeping burden estimate. We estimate that 10,392 firms will expend approximately 250 hours per year to fully satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in parts 108, 113 and 114, for a total of 2,598,000 hours.
Finally, our regulations require that processors mark thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers (§ 113.60(c)) and acidified foods (§ 114.80(b)) with an identifying code to permit lots to be traced after distribution. We seek OMB approval of the third-party disclosure requirements in §§ 113.60(c) and 114.80(b). However, we have not included a separate table to report the estimated burden of these regulations. No burden has been estimated for the third-party disclosure requirements in §§ 113.60(c) and 114.80(b) because the coding process is done as a usual and customary part of normal business activities. Coding is a business practice in foods for liability purposes, inventory control, and process control in the event of a problem. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information are excluded from the burden estimate if the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to comply are usual and customary because they would occur in the normal course of activities. The burden for this information collection has not changed since the last OMB approval.
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the fee rates for using a tropical disease priority review voucher for fiscal year (FY) 2018. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), authorizes FDA to determine and collect priority review user fees for certain applications for approval of drug or biological products when those applications use a tropical disease priority review voucher awarded by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. These vouchers are awarded to the sponsors of certain tropical disease product applications, submitted after September 27, 2007, upon FDA approval of such applications. The amount of the fee submitted to FDA with applications using a tropical disease priority review voucher is determined each fiscal year based on the difference between the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year, and the average cost incurred in the review of an application that is not subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year. This notice establishes the tropical disease priority review fee rate for FY 2018.
Robert J. Marcarelli, Office of Financial Management, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14202F, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7223.
Section 1102 of FDAAA (Pub. L. 110-85) added section 524 to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360n). In section 524, Congress encouraged development of new drug and biological products for prevention and treatment of certain tropical diseases by offering additional incentives for obtaining FDA approval of such products. Under section 524, the sponsor of an eligible human drug application submitted after September 27, 2007, for a tropical disease (as defined in section 524(a)(3) of the FD&C Act), shall receive a priority review voucher upon approval of the tropical disease product application. The recipient of a tropical disease priority review voucher may either use the voucher with a future submission to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1)) or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or transfer (including by sale) the voucher to another party. The voucher may be transferred (including by sale) repeatedly until it ultimately is used for a human drug application submitted to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act. A priority review is a review conducted with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of 6 months after the receipt or filing date, depending upon the type of application. Information regarding the PDUFA goals is available at:
The applicant that uses a priority review voucher is entitled to a priority review but must pay FDA a priority review user fee in addition to any other fee required by PDUFA. FDA published guidance on its Web site about how this tropical disease priority review voucher program operates (available at:
This notice establishes the tropical disease priority review fee rate for FY 2018 as $2,830,579 and outlines FDA's process for implementing the collection of the priority review user fees. This rate is effective on October 1, 2017, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2018, for applications submitted with a tropical disease priority review voucher. The payment of this priority review user fee is required in addition to the payment of any other fee that would normally apply to such an application under PDUFA before FDA will consider the application complete and acceptable for filing.
FDA interprets section 524(c)(2) of the FD&C Act as requiring that FDA determine the amount of the tropical disease priority review user fee each fiscal year based on the difference between the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year, and the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application that is not subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year.
A priority review is a review conducted with a PDUFA goal date of 6 months after the receipt or filing date, depending on the type of application. Under the PDUFA goals letter, FDA has committed to reviewing and acting on 90 percent of the applications granted priority review status within this expedited timeframe. Normally, an application for a human drug or biological product will qualify for priority review if the product is intended to treat a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. An application that does not receive a priority designation will receive a standard review. Under the PDUFA goals letter, FDA committed to reviewing and acting on 90 percent of standard applications within 10 months of the receipt or filing date, depending on the type of application. A priority review involves a more intensive level of effort and a higher level of resources than a standard review.
FDA is setting fees for FY 2018, and the previous fiscal year is FY 2017. However, the FY 2017 submission cohort has not been closed out yet, and the cost data for FY 2017 are not complete. The latest year for which FDA has complete cost data is FY 2016. Furthermore, because FDA has never tracked the cost of reviewing applications that get priority review as a separate cost subset, FDA estimated this cost based on other data that the Agency has tracked. FDA uses data that the Agency estimates and publishes on its Web site each year—standard costs for review. FDA does not publish a standard cost for “the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year.” However, we expect all such applications would contain clinical data. The standard cost application categories with clinical data that FDA does publish each year are: (1) New drug applications (NDAs) for a new molecular entity (NME) with clinical data and (2) biologics license applications (BLAs).
The worksheets for standard costs for FY 2016, show a standard cost (rounded to the nearest hundred dollars) of $5,929,100 for a NME NDA and $4,887,100 for a BLA. Based on these standard costs, the total cost to review the 49 applications in these two categories in FY 2016 (27 NME NDAs with clinical data and 22 BLAs) was $267,601,900. (
For the FY 2018 fee, FDA will need to adjust the FY 2016 incremental cost by the average amount by which FDA's average costs increased in the 3 years prior to FY 2017, to adjust the FY 2016 amount for cost increases in FY 2017. That adjustment, published in the
The fee rate for FY 2018 is set out in table 1:
Under section 524(c)(4)(A) of the FD&C Act, the priority review user fee is due upon submission of a human drug application for which the priority review voucher is used. Section 524(c)(4)(B) of the FD&C Act specifies that the application will be considered incomplete if the priority review user fee and all other applicable user fees are not paid in accordance with FDA payment procedures. In addition, FDA may not grant a waiver, exemption, reduction, or refund of any fees due and payable under section 524 of the FD&C Act (see section 524(c)(4)(C)) and FDA may not collect priority review voucher fees “except to the extent provided in advance in appropriation Acts.” (Section 524(c)(5)(B) of the FD&C Act.) Beginning with FDA's appropriation for FY 2009, the annual appropriation language states specifically that “priority review user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C. 360n [
The tropical disease priority review fee established in the new fee schedule must be paid for any application that is received on or after October 1, 2017, and submitted with a priority review voucher. This fee must be paid in addition to any other fee due under PDUFA. Payment should be made in U.S. currency by electronic check, check, bank draft, wire transfer, credit card, or U.S. postal money order payable to the order of the Food and Drug Administration. The preferred payment method is online using electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH) also known as eCheck). Secure electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at
FDA has partnered with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to use
If paying with a paper check the user fee identification (ID) number should be included on the check, followed by the words “Tropical Disease Priority Review.” All paper checks should be in U.S. currency from a U.S. bank made payable and mailed to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979107, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
If checks are sent by a courier that requests a street address, the courier can deliver the checks to: U.S. Bank, Attention: Government Lockbox 979107, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (
If paying by wire transfer, please reference your unique user fee ID number when completing your transfer. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. If the financial institution charges a wire transfer fee, it is required to add that amount to the payment to ensure that the invoice is paid in full. The account information is as follows: U.S. Dept. of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Account Number: 75060099, Routing Number: 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33, Beneficiary: FDA, 8455 Colesville Rd., 14th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
The following reference is on display in the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that any industry organizations interested in participating in the selection of nonvoting industry representatives to serve on certain panels of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee (MDAC or Committee) in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) notify FDA in writing. FDA is also requesting nominations for nonvoting industry representatives to serve on certain device panels of the MDAC in the CDRH. A nominee may either be self-nominated or nominated by an organization to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Nominations will be accepted for current and upcoming vacancies effective with this notice.
Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests must send a letter stating that interest to the FDA by October 30, 2017 (see sections I and II of this document for further details). Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates should be sent to FDA by October 30, 2017.
All statements of interest from industry organizations interested in participating in the selection process of nonvoting industry representative nomination should be sent to Margaret Ames (see
Margaret Ames, Division of Workforce Management, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5264, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5960, Fax: 301-847-8505, email:
The Agency is requesting nominations for nonvoting industry representatives to the panels listed in the table in this document.
The Committee reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices and makes recommendations for their regulation. The panels engage in a number of activities to fulfill the functions the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) envisions for device advisory panels. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, advises the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) regarding recommended classification or reclassification of devices into one of three regulatory categories; advises on any possible risks to health associated with the use of devices; advises on formulation of product development protocols; reviews premarket approval applications for medical devices; reviews guidelines and guidance documents; recommends exemption of certain devices from the application of portions of the FD&C Act; advises on the necessity to ban a device; and responds to requests from the agency to review and make recommendations on specific issues or problems concerning the safety and effectiveness of devices. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, may also make appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner on issues relating to the design of clinical studies regarding the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices. The Committee also provides recommendations to the Commissioner or designee on complexity categorization of in vitro diagnostics under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988.
Persons nominated for the device panels should be full-time employees of firms that manufacture products that would come before the panel, or consulting firms that represent manufacturers, or have similar appropriate ties to industry.
Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact (see
Individuals may self-nominate and/or an organization may nominate one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Contact information, a current curriculum vitae, and the name of the panel of interest should be sent to the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal (see
FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and, therefore encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before November 27, 2017.
Submit your comments to
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-0330-60D and project title for reference, to
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Affected Public: Survey respondents will consist of Medicare beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries (
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.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the next federal advisory committee meeting regarding the development of national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for 2030. This meeting will be held online via webinar and is open to the public. The Committee will discuss the nation's health promotion and disease prevention objectives and will provide recommendations to improve health status and reduce health risks for the nation by the year 2030. The Committee will advise the Secretary on the Healthy People 2030 mission, vision, framework, and organizational structure. The Committee will provide advice regarding criteria for identifying a more focused set of measurable, nationally representative objectives. The Committee's advice must assist the Secretary in reducing the number of objectives while ensuring that the selection criteria identifies the most critical public health issues that are high-impact priorities supported by current national data.
The Committee will meet on October 16, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET).
The meeting will be held online via webinar. To register to attend the meeting, please visit the Healthy People Web site at
Emmeline Ochiai, Designated Federal Official, Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Room LL-100, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8280 (telephone), (240) 453-8281 (fax). Additional information is available on the Healthy People Web site at
The names and biographies of the Committee members are available at
To join the Committee meeting, individuals must pre-register at the Healthy People Web site at
The Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee (DMICC) will hold a meeting on October 25, 2017. The subject of the meeting will be “Enhancing Opportunities in Addressing Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Disparities.” The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held on October 25, 2017; from 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Individuals wanting to present oral comments must notify the contact person at least 10 days before the meeting date.
The meeting will be held in NIH campus, Building 31, Conference Room 6C6, Bethesda, Maryland.
For further information concerning this meeting, see the DMICC Web site,
The DMICC, chaired by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) comprising members of the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies that support diabetes-related activities, facilitates cooperation, communication, and collaboration on diabetes among government entities. DMICC meetings, held several times a year, provide an opportunity for Committee members to learn about and discuss current and future diabetes programs in DMICC member organizations and to identify opportunities for collaboration. The October 25, 2017 DMICC meeting will focus on Enhancing Opportunities in Addressing Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Disparities.
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee should notify the contact person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives or organizations should submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a written copy of their oral presentation in advance of the meeting. Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present; oral comments and presentations will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. Printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the Committee by forwarding their statement to the contact person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Because of time constraints for the meeting, oral comments will be allowed on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Members of the public who would like to receive email notification about future DMICC meetings should register for the listserv available on the DMICC Web site,
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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Buffalo Field Office, proposes to lease a parcel of public land totaling 0.87 acres in Johnson County, Wyoming, for residential purposes. The subject parcel was inadvertently developed by the adjacent landowner (proposed lessee) as a residence without authorization. The area has a long history of occupancy and the proposed lease would provide the BLM with a reasonable option to resolve the continued unauthorized use of the affected public land. The BLM proposes to lease the lands for not less than the fair market value to N. Pearl Ross. The BLM Buffalo Resource Management Plan, dated September 22, 2015, does not exclude the subject parcel from the authorized officer's discretion to consider lease proposals in the subject area.
Written comments may be submitted to the address below. The BLM must receive your comments on or before November 13, 2017.
Send written comments concerning the proposed lease to the Field Manager, BLM, Buffalo Field Office, 1425 Fort Street, Buffalo, Wyoming 82834.
Claire Oliverius, Realty Specialist, at the address above, or by telephone at 307-684-1178, or by email at
The BLM has determined that the parcel of land described below is suitable for consideration as a residential lease under Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1732) (FLPMA) and the implementing regulations at 43 CFR 2920.
A parcel of land situated in lot 3, section 30, Township 44 North, Range 81 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, more particularly described as follows:
Based on past use of the subject parcel for a residence owned by William D. and Bonnie S. Ross, and currently occupied by N. Pearl Ross, it is the authorized officer's decision to offer the proposed residential lease with appropriate terms and conditions to N. Pearl Ross on a non-competitive basis because competitive bidding would represent an unfair competitive and economic disadvantage to Ms. Ross. As noted above, the use of this parcel constitutes an inadvertent trespass that was discovered by the BLM in 2013. The Ross family has since worked with the BLM to settle the trespass and the proposed lessee will apply for a residential lease.
Subsequent to the BLM's receipt of an application for leasing by N. Pearl Ross that complies with all applicable requirements set forth at 43 CFR 2920.5, processing of the proposed lease will take place in accordance with 43 CFR 2920.6, and other applicable regulations. Information and documentation regarding processing of the lease application is available as described in
Public comments regarding the proposed lease may be submitted in writing—see
Comments received in electronic form, such as email or fax, will be considered. Any adverse comments regarding the proposed lease will be reviewed by the BLM Wyoming State Director or another authorized official of the Department of the Interior, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action in whole or in part. In the absence of timely filed objections, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 CFR 2920.4.
United States International Trade Commission.
October 4, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-683 (Fourth Review) (Fresh Garlic from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission by October 19, 2017.
5.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission:
United States International Trade Commission.
October 6, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-587 and 731-TA-1385-1386 (Preliminary) (Titanium Sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations on October 10, 2017; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on October 17, 2017.
5.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission:
United States International Trade Commission.
October 5, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. No. TA-201-76 (Injury) (Large Residential Washers).
5.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 27, 2017.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jean King, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 2600, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041; telephone: (703) 305-0470.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published, allowing for a 60 day comment period.
Comments are encourages and will be accepted for an additional 30 day until October 30, 2017.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gerry Lynn Brovey, Supervisory Information Liaison Specialist, FBI, CJIS, Resources Management Section, Administrative Unit, Module C-2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia, 26306 (facsimile: 304-625-5093). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted via email to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 27, 2017.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jeff Rosenblum, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 2600, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 20530; telephone: (703) 305-0470. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution
In accordance with the Section 223 (19 U.S.C. 2273) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271,
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)) must be met, as follows:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(1)) is that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm (or “such firm”) have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; and (2(A) or 2(B) below)
(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied by either (A) the Increased Imports Path, or (B) the Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path/Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path, as follows:
(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm, have decreased absolutely; and (ii and iii below)
(ii)(I) imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased or
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased; or
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using the services supplied by such firm, have increased; or
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased; and
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
(i)(I) There has been a shift by such workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of services like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; or
(II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country articles or services that are like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(b)) must be met, as follows:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; and
(2) the workers' firm is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)), and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification (as defined in subsection 222(c)(3) and (4) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(c)(3) and (4)); and
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation determined under paragraph (1).
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(e) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(e)) must be met, by following criteria (1), (2), and (3) as follows:
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1)); or
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2436(b)(1)); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A)); and
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(f)(1)) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1)
(3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) not withstanding section 223(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2273(b)), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (Increased Imports Path) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path or Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for TAA have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the requirements of Trade Act section 222(a)(1) and (b)(1) (significant worker total/partial separation or threat of total/partial separation), or (e) (firms identified by the International Trade Commission), have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A)(i) (decline in sales or production, or both), or (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country or acquisition of articles or services from a foreign country), (b)(2) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA or downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA), and (e) (International Trade Commission) of section 222 have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs(a)(2)(A) (increased imports), (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country or acquisition of articles or services from a foreign country), (b)(2)
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued in cases where the petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the worker group on whose behalf the petition was filed is covered under an existing certification.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Standard on Steel Erection.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by November 27, 2017.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222:
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply. For example, by using automated, or other technological information collection, and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting an adjustment increase of 9,426 burden hours, from 21,393 to 30,819 burden hours. This increase is due in part to an increase in estimated worksites associated with this subpart, from 13,864 to 16,748. The increase also results from the Agency's determination that information collection requirements identified in Subpart R—Steel Erection's non-mandatory Appendix A are covered by the PRA.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
This document announces a new Operational Status Agreement between the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Hawaii State Plan. This agreement specifies the respective areas of federal and state authority, and under which Hawaii will reassume enforcement coverage in the private sector.
Effective September 28, 2017.
For press inquiries: Francis Meilinger, OSHA Office of Communications; telephone (202) 693-1999; email:
For general and technical information: Douglas J. Kalinowski, Director, OSHA Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs; telephone: (202) 693-2200; email:
Hawaii administers an OSHA-approved State Plan to develop and enforce occupational safety and health standards for public-sector and private-sector employers, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. 667. Pursuant to Section 18(e) of the Act, OSHA granted Hawaii “final approval” in 1984 (49 FR 19182, May 4, 1984). A final approval determination results in the relinquishment of federal concurrent enforcement authority in the state with respect to occupational safety and health issues covered by the plan, 29 U.S.C. 667(e).
During the period 2009-2012, the Hawaii State Plan faced major budgetary and staffing restraints that significantly affected its program. Therefore, the Hawaii Director of Labor and Industrial Relations requested a temporary modification of the State Plan's approval status from final approval to initial approval, to permit exercise of supplemental federal enforcement activity and to allow Hawaii sufficient time and assistance to strengthen its State Plan. On September 21, 2012, OSHA published a Final Rule in the
HIOSH and OSHA have since worked together to strengthen the State Plan, and HIOSH has achieved the milestones established to resume practically all private-sector enforcement authority.
OSHA and HIOSH signed a new OSA on April 13, 2017, which replaced the prior 2012 OSA. Federal OSHA and HIOSH will exercise their respective enforcement authorities according to the terms of the 2017 OSA between OSHA and HIOSH, which specifies the respective areas of federal and state authority. Among other things, Federal OSHA retains coverage over all federal employees, contractors, and subcontractors at Hawaii National Parks and on any other federal establishment where the land is determined to be under exclusive federal jurisdiction; private-sector maritime activities; private-sector employees within the secured borders of all military installations where access is controlled; the U.S. Postal Service, its contract workers, and contractor-operated facilities; and the enforcement of Section 11(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 660(c), the Act's whistleblower provision. The Hawaii State Plan retains coverage over all state and local government employers and regains coverage over all private-sector employers not covered by federal OSHA, including marine construction not performed on vessels or other floating facilities. For further information please visit
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, authorized the preparation of this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified by Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667),
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Powered Industrial Trucks Standard. The information collection requirements address truck design, construction and modification, as well as certification of training and evaluation for truck operators.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by November 27, 2017.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
Paragraph (a)(4) of the Powered Industrial Trucks Standard requires employers to obtain the manufacturer's written approval before modifying a truck in a manner that affects its capacity and safe operation; if the manufacturer grants such approval, the employer must revise capacity, operation, and maintenance instruction plates, tags, and decals accordingly. For front-end attachments not installed by the manufacturer, paragraph (a)(5) mandates that employers provide a marker on the trucks that identifies the attachment, as well as the weight of both the truck and the attachment when the attachment is at maximum elevation with a laterally centered load. Paragraph (a)(6) specifies that employers must ensure that the markers required by paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5) remain affixed to the trucks and are legible.
Paragraphs (1)(4) and (1)(6) of the Standard contain the paperwork requirements necessary to certify the evaluation and training provided to powered industrial truck operators. Accordingly, these paragraphs specify the following requirements for employers.
• Paragraph (1)(4)(iii)—Evaluate each operator's performance at least once every three years.
• Paragraph (l)(6)—Certify that each operator meets the training and evaluation requirements specified by paragraph (l). This certification must include the operator's name, the training date, the evaluation date, and the identity of the individual(s) who performed the training and evaluation.
Requiring labels (markings) on modified equipment notifies workers of the conditions under which they can safely operate powered industrial trucks, thereby preventing such hazards as fires and explosions caused by poorly designed electrical systems, rollovers/tipovers that result from exceeding a truck's stability characteristics, and falling loads that occur when loads exceed the lifting capacities of attachments. Certification of worker training and evaluation provides a means of informing employers that their workers received the training and demonstrated the performance necessary to operate a truck within its capacity and control limitations. By ensuring that workers operate only trucks that are in proper working order, and do so safely, employers prevent possible severe injury or death of truck operators and other workers who are in the vicinity of the trucks. Finally, these paperwork requirements are the most efficient means for an OSHA
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply. For example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is proposing to increase the existing burden hour estimate of the collection of information requirements specified by the Standard. In this regard, the Agency is proposing to increase the current burden hour estimate from 888,244 hours to 911,764 hours, a total increase of 23,520 hours. The adjustment increase is due to updated data indicating a growth in the number of powered industrial trucks from 1,179,441 to 1,210,679 and the number of operators from 1,769,162 to 1,816,018.
Upon further analysis, OSHA has determined that these training provisions are not considered to be collections of information under the PRA. In addition, the Agency was able to gather data updating the number of trucks and operators. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
In accordance with Section 610(b)(2) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701-7718), as amended, and the heading “Millennium Challenge Corporation” of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is publishing a summary of the Millennium Challenge Compact between the United States of America, acting through MCC, and the Republic of Nepal. Representatives of MCC and Nepal signed the compact on September 14, 2017. The complete text of the compact has been posted at:
MCC's Board of Directors has approved a five-year, $500 million compact with Nepal aimed at reducing poverty through economic growth. The compact seeks to assist Nepal in addressing two binding constraints to economic growth: (i) Inadequate supply of electricity; and (ii) high cost of transportation. The compact will address these binding constraints by investing in two projects: The Electricity Transmission Project and the Road Maintenance Project.
Nepal's economic growth, labor productivity, and gross domestic product per capita are among the lowest
The proposed compact is designed to address the underlying causes of two binding constraints to Nepal's growth: Inadequate supply of electricity and high cost of transportation. Nepal suffers from the worst electricity shortages in South Asia, and new investment in Nepal's electricity sector is critical to achieve economic growth. Only half of the demand for electricity can be met by the nation's grid, which has resulted in load-shedding of up to 18 hours a day during the dry winter months when hydropower generation is low. The constraints to growth analysis found that the low availability of electricity creates significant costs for businesses that must run generators on expensive imported fuel. The availability of electricity is further reduced by Nepal's constrained ability to import power when needed and the high level of losses in transmission and distribution system.
The transportation sector has also suffered from Nepal's past political instability, inadequate investment, weak planning, and poor project execution. These factors have contributed to poor road quality, inefficient customs and border enforcement, an inefficient trucking industry, and inadequate road coverage. The Government of Nepal recognizes that investments in this sector are needed to reduce transportation costs and promote economic growth.
After MCC selected Nepal as eligible for threshold program assistance in December 2011, MCC and the Government of Nepal conducted a constraints to growth analysis. When MCC's Board of Directors selected Nepal as eligible to develop a compact in December 2014, MCC and the Government of Nepal used the analysis completed for the threshold program to develop the proposed compact.
MCC and Nepal identified four binding constraints and agreed to focus the proposed compact on the two best suited for MCC's assistance: The inadequate supply of electricity and the high cost of transportation. The proposed compact seeks to address the selected constraints by investing in two projects: the Electricity Transmission Project and the Road Maintenance Project.
Nepal is already undertaking significant investments in the generation and distribution portions of the power sector value chain. The proposed Electricity Transmission Project therefore seeks to strengthen the transmission portion of the value chain, which has been weakened by historic underinvestment and poor implementation. The Electricity Transmission Project plans to add approximately 300 kilometers to the high-voltage transmission backbone inside Nepal, complete the Nepal portion of the second cross-border transmission line with India for increased electricity trade, and provide technical assistance aimed at improving the sustainability of Nepal's power sector. The compact will also support Nepal's establishment of an independent and capable power sector regulator, which is essential for maintaining open, non-discriminatory access to a transmission network with transparent pricing and clear rules of engagement.
The Road Maintenance Project focuses on improving Nepal's road maintenance regime by providing technical assistance to key actors within the transportation sector. The Road Maintenance Project also includes an incentive-matching fund to encourage the expansion of Nepal's road maintenance budget, in addition to the periodic maintenance of up to 305 kilometers of the country's strategic road network.
The following summary describes the components of Nepal's compact. The MCC investment for the compact is $500 million, with an additional $130 million committed by Nepal to support the compact program.
•
•
•
•
•
•
The proposed Electricity Transmission Project has an estimated economic rate of return of 12 percent. The investment in Nepal's transmission system is expected to affect all grid-connected consumers, which represent 72 percent of Nepali households. With a projected population in 2024 of 31.5 million people, an estimated 23 million individual beneficiaries living in five million households are expected to benefit from this project. Fifty-two percent of the potential beneficiaries are estimated to be female.
The estimated economic rate of return for the Road Maintenance Project is 29 percent. The 305 kilometers of roads proposed by Nepal for periodic maintenance under the compact are spread across five road segments in five geographic areas. The Project is expected to benefit approximately 924,000 people in 205,000 households.
MCC anticipates that there will be overlap in the beneficiaries of the two proposed projects and thus ultimately expects the compact to benefit approximately 23 million individuals.
MCC will require certain conditions to entry into force of the compact in order to ensure sustainability of compact investments. For example, given the proposed compact's focus and the clear need for a second cross-border transmission connection with India, MCC will require that technical and financial arrangements for the construction of the complementary investment in India be finalized before entry into force of the compact. This requirement is expected to be further strengthened through conditions regarding the Nepal portion of the cross-border transmission line that must be met for certain compact disbursements.
The proposed compact includes several key reform elements, supported by technical assistance activities in each project. The Power Sector Technical Assistance Activity includes conditions to help Nepal create a transparent and efficient electricity market. MCC believes that the establishment of the Electricity Regulatory Commission as an independent and capable regulator is essential for maintaining open, non-discriminatory access to a transmission network with transparent pricing and clear rules of engagement for all power market participants, particularly investors in generation projects. The compact proposes to increase the utility's planning, operations, and cost recovery mechanisms to help ensure the sustainability of the proposed investments. Strengthening the utility's transmission operations should ensure its viability if Nepal decides to spin off or merge those operations with an independent transmission company. MCC has conditioned the entry into force of the compact on satisfactory progress toward parliamentary approval of a bill to establish the Electricity Regulatory Commission. Further, funding for the Power Sector Technical Assistance Activity will only be provided if the Electricity Regulatory
For the Technical Assistance Activity in the Road Maintenance Project, MCC will provide compact funding for maintenance works only if Nepal increases its own historically low spending levels on road maintenance. The compact is expected to incentivize Nepal to increase its spending for road maintenance significantly by making MCC funding conditioned on increased Nepal spending.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice of open meeting.
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.—App., the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Advisory Council was established as a discretionary advisory committee on June 14, 2016. The MCC Advisory Council contributes to MCC's mission to reduce poverty through economic growth. The functions of the MCC Advisory Council are to exclusively serve MCC in an advisory capacity and provide insight regarding innovations in infrastructure, technology and sustainability, perceived risks and opportunities in MCC partner countries, new financing mechanisms for developing country contexts, and shared value approaches. The MCC Advisory Council provides a platform for systematic engagement with the private sector and other external stakeholders.
The meeting will be held October 17, 2017, from 9 a.m.-1:45 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be held at the Millennium Challenge Corporation 1099 14th St. NW., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005.
For further information, contact Beth Roberts at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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.
All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20543. Attention: Desk Officer for NASA.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Lori Parker, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JF0000, Washington, DC 20546 or email
The information submitted by recipients is an annual report of Government-owned property in the possession of educational or nonprofit institutions holding NASA grants. In addition to the annual report, a property report may also be required at the end of the grant, or on the occurrence of certain events. The collected information is used by NASA to effectively maintain an appropriate internal control system for equipment and property provided or acquired under grants and cooperative agreements with institutions of higher education and other nonprofit organizations, and to comply with statutory requirements.
NASA is participating in Federal efforts to extend the use of information technology to more Government processes via Internet. NASA encourages recipients to use the latest computer technology in preparing documentation. Grant and Cooperative Agreement awardees submit annual property reports via an automated NASA Form 1018 by way of the NASA Electronic Submission System (NESS). Approximately 95% of reports are submitted via electronic means.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) 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
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
The National Science Board's Committee on Strategy (CS), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Wednesday, October 4, 2017 from 4:00-4:30 p.m. EDT.
Discussion of potential Committee on Strategy activities through May 2018; and discussion of November 2017 NSB meeting agenda items.
Open.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314. An audio link will be available for the public. Members of the public must contact the Board Office to request the public audio link by sending an email to
Please refer to the National Science Board Web site
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) regarding the request for regulatory exemption from specific requirements that would allow the use of operator manual actions related to loss of instrument air regarding Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65 held by Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Dominion, the licensee) for the operation of Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 (Millstone 2).
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document is available on September 28, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0197 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:
•
•
•
Richard Guzman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1030; email:
The NRC is considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements from section III.G.2 of appendix R to part 50 of title 10 of the
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC has prepared an EA that analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed regulatory exemption. Based on the results of the EA, and in accordance with 10 CFR 51.32, the NRC has prepared a FONSI for the proposed action.
In its application dated October 28, 2016, the licensee requested an exemption from certain requirements pertaining to NRC fire regulations contained in appendix R to 10 CFR part 50. The proposed action would exempt Millstone 2 from these requirements and allow the licensee to use alternate methods than those specified in appendix R to 10 CFR part 50 to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions for affected initiating fire areas with consideration of a loss of instrument air. Specifically, the proposed action would allow the licensee to use operator manual actions (OMAs) related to loss of instrument air at Millstone 2 in lieu of the requirements contained in section III.G.2 of appendix R to 10 CFR part 50.
A regulatory exemption to section III.G.2 of appendix R to 10 CFR part 50 is needed to allow Millstone 2 to use alternate methods than those specified in appendix R to 10 CFR part 50 to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions for affected initiating fire areas with consideration of a loss of instrument air.
Regulatory Issue Summary 2006-10, “Regulatory Expectations with Appendix R, Section III.G.2, Operator Manual Actions,” documents the NRC position on the use of OMAs as part of a compliance strategy to meet the requirements of section III.G.2 of appendix R. The NRC requires plants which credit manual actions for regulatory compliance with section III.G.2 of appendix R to obtain NRC approval for those actions in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 50.12, “Specific Exemptions.”
The licensee originally submitted an exemption request for OMAs contained in the Millstone 2 Appendix R Compliance Report in its letter dated June 30, 2011. The licensee subsequently removed four OMAs from that exemption request related to specific fire areas by letter dated February 29, 2012, because loss of instrument air was not a postulated event. The NRC approved the requested exemption, as revised, by letter dated December 18, 2012.
During the 2016 triennial fire inspection at Millstone 2, it was identified that a loss of offsite power will result in a loss of instrument air prior to the emergency diesel generators starting and that instrument air does not automatically restart and cannot be manually started from the control room. The intent of 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, section III.G.2, is to ensure one train of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown will remain available in the event of a fire. At Millstone 2, instrument air is a single train system and, therefore, does not meet appendix R, section III.G.2 requirements because there is no redundant train. A loss of instrument air will result in both atmospheric dump valves (ADVs) failing closed. Instrument air is necessary to operate the ADVs and support decay heat removal. The four OMAs (OMAs 1, 9, 10, and 11) subject to this exemption request provide assurance for the use of alternate methods than those specified in appendix R to 10 CFR part 50 to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions for affected initiating fire areas with consideration of a loss of instrument air. As a result, the licensee is submitting this exemption request for those OMAs (OMAs 1, 9, 10, and 11) related to a loss of instrument air for certain affected initiating fire areas (R-9, R-10, R-13, and R-14).
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action. The proposed action consists of the NRC granting Millstone 2 a regulatory exemption for the use of alternate methods than those specified in appendix R to 10 CFR part 50 to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions for affected initiating fire areas with consideration of a loss of instrument air. Specifically, the regulatory exemption is necessary to allow the use of OMAs related to loss of instrument air in lieu of the requirements contained in section III.G.2 of appendix R to 10 CFR part 50.
The proposed changes would have no direct impacts on land use or water resources, including terrestrial and aquatic biota as the proposed action involves no new construction or modification of plant operational systems. There would be no changes to the quality or quantity of non-radiological effluents. No changes to the plant's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit are needed. No changes in ambient air quality would be expected. In addition, there would be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic conditions in the region, no environment justice impacts, and no impacts to historic and cultural resources. Therefore, there would be no significant non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action.
The NRC has concluded that the proposed action would not significantly affect plant safety and would not have a significant adverse effect on the probability of an accident occurring. There would be no change to radioactive effluents that affect radiation exposures to plant workers and members of the public. No changes would be made to plant buildings or the site property. Therefore, the proposed action would not result in a change to the radiation exposures to the public or radiation exposure to plant workers.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC considered denial of the proposed action (
There are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources under the proposed action.
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 31, 2017, the NRC staff consulted with the Connecticut State official, Mr. Jeffrey Semancik of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The state official had no comments.
The licensee has requested an exemption from specific regulatory requirements to allow the use of OMAs
The related environmental document is the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3—Final Report,” NUREG-1437, Supplement 22. NUREG-1437, Supplement 22 provides the latest environmental review of current operations and description of environmental conditions at Millstone 2.
The finding and other related environmental documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly-available records will be accessible electronically from ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC's Web site:
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Notice of New Blanket Routine Use.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) is proposing in this notice the addition of a new blanket routine use. OSHRC's Privacy Act system-of-records notices are published at 71 FR 19556, 19556-67 (Apr. 14, 2006), 72 FR 54301, 54301-03 (Sept. 24, 2007), and 81 FR 44335, 44335-37 (July 7, 2016), with additional blanket routine uses published at 73 FR 45256, 45256-57 (Aug. 4, 2008), and 80 FR 60182, 60182 (Oct. 5, 2015).
Comments must be received by OSHRC on or before October 30, 2017. The new blanket routine use will become effective on that date, without any further notice in the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ron Bailey, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, via telephone at (202) 606-5410, or via email at
The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), requires OSHRC to publish in the
On January 3, 2017, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
OSHRC's proposed blanket routine use is published below. Twelve other blanket routine uses, which remain in effect, were last published at 71 FR 19556, 19558-59 (Apr. 14, 2006), 73 FR 45256, 45256-57 (Aug. 4, 2008), and 80 FR 60182, 60182 (Oct. 5, 2015).
(13) A record from an OSHRC system of records may be disclosed as a blanket routine use to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when OSHRC 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.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR), Verification of Adult Student Enrollment Status, RI 25-49.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 30, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0215) was previously published in the
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Form RI 25-49 is used to verify that adult student annuitants are entitled to payment. The Office of Personnel Management must confirm that a full-time enrollment has been maintained.
On July 26, 2017, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange permits its participants to submit to the Exchange cross orders marked with a QCT modifier (sometimes referred to as “QCT crosses”) to effect transactions that comprise the NMS stock component of a QCT.
The Exchange proposes to amend Article 1, Rule 2(b)(2)(E) to provide that QCT crosses may be submitted to the Exchange only by registered IBs.
The CHX Broker Back Office System (“BBOS”) is an Exchange-maintained trade management system that, among other things, enables the Exchange to review information to identify the specific component transactions on away exchanges that are being used to hedge QCT crosses executed on the Exchange.
The Exchange has proposed several interrelated amendments to Article 11, Rule 3 to require IBs to maintain their own records of, and record with the Exchange, certain information regarding away QCT component orders and trades. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 3(a)(4), which would make subject to the Rule 3(a) recordkeeping requirements every component order and trade, whether handled by the Exchange participant or not, related to a cross order marked QCT that is submitted by the Exchange participant and executed within the Exchange matching system.
Relatedly, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 3(b) to include a cross reference to proposed Rule 3(a)(4), and would thereby require that, subject to exceptions set out in interpretations to Rule 3, IBs accurately record in an electronic system designated by the Exchange certain details regarding the away component orders and executions identified in proposed Rule 3(a)(4).
In addition, the Exchange has proposed amendments to Article 17 that dovetail with its proposed changes to Article 11, Rule 3. The Exchange proposes to amend Article 17, Rule 3(a) to state that an IB must enter all orders it receives for execution and any other information required under Article 11 into an automated system approved by the Exchange.
The Exchange also proposes to adopt new Article 17, Rule 7, which would codify the BBOS into the Exchange's rules.
Currently, Article 17, Rule 3(c) provides that each IB must maintain separate accounts for handling agency transactions, principal transactions, and transactions involving errors, and must enter transactions into the appropriate accounts.
The Exchange proposes various clarifying amendments to Article 11, Rule 3 regarding certain recordkeeping requirements concerning orders and executions by certain types of Exchange participants, including, but not limited to, IBs.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to clarify that proprietary orders fall under the purview of Article 11, Rule 3.
Further, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph .03 under the Interpretations and Policies of Article 11, Rule 3. Currently, paragraph .03 states that the rule shall not apply to orders sent or received through the matching system or through any other electronic system that the Exchange expressly recognizes as providing the required information in a format acceptable to the Exchange. The Exchange states that it believes the current provision could be misconstrued to exclude such orders from the scope of Article 11, Rule 3, which is not the Exchange's intent.
The Exchange has also proposed to adopt amendments to clarify its rules regarding the operation of cross orders and Cross With Size handling and to eliminate redundant language in those
The Exchange has proposed to provide notice to its participants of the operative date of the proposed change in the event that the proposed rule change is approved by the Commission.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act
The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to permit only registered IBs to submit QCT crosses to the Exchange is consistent with the Act. The Exchange has noted that, currently, while other types of Exchange participants are permitted to submit QCT crosses, only IBs do so in practice.
In addition, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed rule amendments to require IBs to maintain records of, and record with the Exchange, appropriate information regarding QCT cross transactions, and in particular the away component orders and trades of such transactions, are consistent with the Act. As the Exchange noted, currently, its recordkeeping rules do not require the recording of information regarding the away component orders and trades related to QCT crosses submitted to the Exchange, and IBs instead are encouraged, but not required, to enter such information into the BBOS.
Lastly, the Commission believes that the Exchange's additional proposed amendments to clarify its rules regarding IB recordkeeping accounts (Article 17, Rule 3(c)), the recordkeeping requirements for certain Exchange participants (Article 11, Rule 3), and the operation of the cross order type and Cross With Size handling (Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2), Article 1, Rule 2(g)(1) and Article 20, Rule 8(e)) add transparency and remove any potential ambiguity in those rules and reduce the potential for confusion as to their meaning and intended application, which should help protect investors consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. In addition, the Commission believes that these proposed changes are reasonably designed to clarify the scope and meaning of those rules, which should help the Exchange assure compliance by Exchange participants with the Exchange's rules, consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act.
It is therefore ordered, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes (1) to reflect a change in the name of the IQ Municipal Insured ETF, IQ Municipal Intermediate ETF, and IQ Municipal Short Duration ETF (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”), and (2) to reflect a change in the dollar-weighted average duration to be maintained by the IQ Municipal Insured ETF and IQ Municipal Intermediate ETF. Shares of the Funds have been approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) for listing and trading on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. 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 Commission has approved a proposed rule change relating to listing and trading on the Exchange of shares (“Shares”) of the Funds under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E,
On June 27, 2017, the name of the IQ Municipal Insured ETF was changed to IQ MacKay Shields Municipal Insured ETF, the name of the IQ Municipal Intermediate ETF was changed to IQ MacKay Shields Municipal Intermediate ETF, and the name of the IQ Municipal Short Duration ETF was changed to IQ MacKay Shields Municipal Short Duration ETF. This proposed rule change proposes to reflect these changes.
The Prior Release stated that the IQ Municipal Insured ETF generally will maintain a dollar-weighted average duration within plus or minus two years of the dollar-weighted average duration of the S&P Municipal Bond Insured Index. The Fund proposes to change this representation to state that the Fund generally will maintain a dollar-weighted average modified duration of 3 to15 years.
In addition, the Prior Release stated that the IQ Municipal Intermediate ETF generally will maintain a dollar-weighted average duration within plus or minus two years of the dollar-weighted average duration of the S&P Municipal Bond Intermediate Index. The Fund proposes to change this representation to state that the Fund generally will maintain a dollar-weighted average modified duration of three to ten years.
The Adviser represents that the proposal to change representations regarding duration, as described above, is consistent with each applicable Fund's respective investment objective, and will further assist the Adviser and Subadviser to achieve such investment objective. Except for the changes noted above, all other representations made in the Prior Release remain unchanged.
The Adviser represents that the investment objective of the Funds is not changing.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
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. The names of the Funds have been changed to include the name of the Subadviser (MacKay Shields LLC). The Exchange believes that the change to the representations regarding the dollar-weighted average modified duration of the applicable Funds will not adversely impact investors or Exchange trading and will provide such Funds with additional flexibility in managing the Funds' investments based on the Adviser's and Subadviser's assessment of market conditions impacting the Funds' investments.
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 believes the proposed rule change will provide the Adviser and Subadviser with additional flexibility in managing the applicable Funds' investments based on the Adviser's and Subadviser's assessment of market conditions impacting the Funds' investments and will not impose a burden on competition. In addition, the Funds' name changes as described above raise no competitive issues.
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
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.
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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act. Applicants request an order to permit a business development company to co-invest in portfolio companies with affiliated investment funds.
Oaktree Strategic Income, LLC (“OSI”), Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. (“OCM LP”), Oaktree High Yield Bond Fund, L.P., Oaktree High Yield Fund II, L.P., OCM High Yield Trust, Oaktree Expanded High Yield Fund, L.P., Oaktree Global High Yield Bond Fund, L.P., Oaktree European High Yield Fund, L.P., Oaktree Senior Loan Fund, L.P., Oaktree Enhanced Income Fund III, L.P., Oaktree Enhanced Income Fund III (Parallel), L.P., Oaktree CLO 2014-1 Ltd., Oaktree CLO 2014-2 Ltd., Oaktree CLO 2015-1 Ltd., Oaktree EIF I Series A1, Ltd., Oaktree EIF I Series A, Ltd., Oaktree EIF II Series A1, Ltd., Oaktree EIF II Series A2, Ltd., Oaktree EIF II Series B1, Ltd., Oaktree EIF III Series I, Ltd., Oaktree EIF III Series II, Ltd., Oaktree Strategic Credit Fund A, L.P., Oaktree Strategic Credit Fund B, L.P., Ace Strategic Credit Holdings (Cayman), L.P., Exelon Strategic Credit Holdings, LLC, Oaktree FF Investment Fund, L.P., Oaktree-Minn Strategic Credit, LLC, Oaktree-NGP Strategic Credit, LLC, Oaktree-TBMR Strategic Credit Fund, LLC, Oaktree-TBMR Strategic Credit Fund C, LLC, Oaktree-TBMR Strategic Credit Fund F, LLC, Oaktree-TBMR Strategic Credit Fund G, LLC, Oaktree-TCDRS Strategic Credit, LLC, Oaktree-TSE 16 Strategic Credit, LLC, Oaktree Mezzanine Fund IV, L.P., Oaktree Middle-Market Direct Lending Fund, L.P., Oaktree Middle-Market Direct Lending Unlevered Fund, L.P., Oaktree Middle-Market Direct Lending Fund (Parallel), L.P., Oaktree Middle-Market Direct Lending Unlevered Fund (Parallel), L.P., Oaktree European Capital Solutions Fund (Parallel), L.P., Oaktree European Capital Solutions Fund, L.P., Oaktree European Special Situations Fund, L.P., Oaktree Desert Sky Investment Fund, L.P., Oaktree Emerging Markets Debt Total Return Fund, L.P., Oaktree Boulder Investment Fund, L.P., OCM Convertible Trust, Oaktree Non-U.S. Convertible Fund, L.P., Oaktree High Income Convertible Fund, L.P., Oaktree High Income Convertible Fund II, L.P., Oaktree Opportunities Fund X, L.P., Oaktree Opportunities Fund X (Parallel), L.P., Oaktree Opportunities Fund X (Parallel 2), L.P., Oaktree Opportunities Fund Xb, L.P., Oaktree Opportunities Fund Xb (Parallel), L.P., Oaktree Opportunities Fund Xb (Parallel 2), L.P., Oaktree Huntington Investment Fund II, L.P., Oaktree Cascade Investment Fund I, L.P., Oaktree Cascade Investment Fund II, L.P., Oaktree Value Opportunities Fund, L.P., Oaktree BAA Emerging Market Opportunities Fund, L.P., Oaktree Glacier Investment Fund, L.P., Oaktree TX Emerging Market Opportunities Fund, L.P., Oaktree Emerging Market Opportunities Fund, L.P., Oaktree Special Situations Fund, L.P., OCM Avalon Co-Investment Fund, L.P., Oaktree European Principal Fund IV, L.P., Oaktree European Principal Fund IV, S.C.S., Oaktree Power Opportunities Fund IV, L.P., Oaktree Power Opportunities Fund IV (Parallel), L.P., Oaktree Infrastructure Fund, L.P., Oaktree Infrastructure Fund (Parallel), L.P., Oaktree Infrastructure Fund, S.C.S., Oaktree Energy Infrastructure Fund, L.P., Oaktree Energy Infrastructure Fund (Parallel), L.P., Oaktree Transportation Infrastructure Fund, L.P., Oaktree Transportation Infrastructure Fund (Parallel), L.P., Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VII, L.P., Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VII (Parallel), L.P., Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VII (Parallel 2), L.P., Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VII (Parallel 3), L.P., Oaktree Real Estate Opportunities Fund VII (Parallel 4), L.P., Oaktree Juniper Investment Fund, L.P., Oaktree Pinnacle Investment Fund, L.P., Oaktree Real Estate Debt Fund II, L.P., Oaktree Real Estate Debt Fund II (Parallel), L.P., Oaktree Real Estate Income Fund, L.P., Oaktree Real Estate Debt Securities Fund—SF, LLC, Oaktree Emerging Markets Absolute Return Fund, L.P., Oaktree Emerging Markets Equity Fund, L.P., Oaktree Value Equity Fund, L.P., Oaktree Japan Absolute Return Fund, L.P., Oaktree Private Investment Fund IV, L.P., Oaktree-Forrest Multi-Strategy, LLC, Oaktree TT Multi-Strategy Fund, L.P., and Oaktree Global Credit Fund, L.P.
The application was filed on March 30, 2017, and amended on August 28, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 17, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: 333 South Grand Ave., 28th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071.
Jean E. Minarick, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6811, or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Applicants request an order of the Commission under Sections 17(d) and 57(i) and Rule 17d-1 thereunder (the “Order”) to permit, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the application (the “Conditions”), a Regulated Fund
2. OSI is a Delaware limited liability company and a closed-end management investment company that will elect to be regulated as a business development company (“BDC”) under the Act.
3. OCM LP, a Delaware limited partnership that is registered under the Advisers Act, serves as the investment adviser to OSI.
4. The Existing Affiliated Funds are the investment funds identified in Appendix A to the application. Applicants represent that each Existing Affiliated Fund is a separate and distinct legal entity and each would be an investment company but for Section 3(c)(1), 3(c)(5)(C) or 3(c)(7) of the Act. OCM LP is the Adviser to the Existing Affiliated Funds.
5. Each of the Applicants may be deemed to be controlled by Oaktree Capital Group, LLC (“OCG”), a publicly traded company. OCG owns controlling interests in the Adviser and, thus, may be deemed to control the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds. Applicants state that OCG is a holding company and does not currently offer investment advisory services to any person and is not expected to do so in the future. Applicants state that as a result, OCG has not been included as an Applicant.
6. Applicants state that a Regulated Fund may, from time to time, form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subs.
7. Applicants state that the Adviser is presented with thousands of investment opportunities each year on behalf of its clients and after OSI elects to be regulated as a BDC, the Adviser will determine how to allocate those opportunities in a manner that, over time, is fair and equitable to all of its clients. Such investment opportunities may be Potential Co-Investment Transactions.
8. Applicants represent that the Adviser has established processes for allocating initial investment opportunities, opportunities for subsequent investments in an issuer and dispositions of securities holdings reasonably designed to treat all clients fairly and equitably. Further, Applicants represent that these processes will be extended and modified in a manner reasonably designed to ensure that the additional transactions permitted under the Order will both (i) be fair and equitable to the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds and (ii) comply with the Conditions.
9. Specifically, applicants state that the Adviser is organized and managed such that the portfolio managers and analysts (“Investment Teams”), responsible for evaluating investment opportunities and making investment decisions on behalf of clients are promptly notified of the opportunities. If the requested Order is granted, the Advisers will establish, maintain and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that, when such opportunities arise, the Advisers to the relevant Regulated Funds are promptly notified and receive the same information about the opportunity as any other Advisers considering the opportunity for their clients. In particular, consistent with Condition 1, if a Potential Co-Investment Transaction falls within the then-current Objectives and Strategies
10. The Adviser to each applicable Regulated Fund will then make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for the Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances. If the Adviser to a Regulated Fund deems the Regulated Fund's participation in such Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate, then it will formulate a recommendation regarding the proposed order amount for the Regulated Fund.
11. Applicants state that, for each Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund whose Adviser recommends participating in a Potential Co-Investment Transaction, the Adviser will submit a proposed order amount to an internal allocation committee which the Adviser will establish to handle the allocation of investment opportunities in Potential Co-Investment Transactions (the “Co-Investment Transaction Allocation Committee”). Applicants state further that, at this stage, each proposed order amount may be reviewed and adjusted, in accordance with the Advisers' written allocation policies and procedures, by the Co-Investment Transaction Allocation Committee.
12. If the aggregate Internal Orders for a Potential Co-Investment Transaction do not exceed the size of the investment opportunity immediately prior to the submission of the orders to the underwriter, broker, dealer or issuer, as applicable (the “External Submission”), then each Internal Order will be fulfilled as placed. If, on the other hand, the aggregate Internal Orders for a Potential Co-Investment Transaction exceed the size of the investment opportunity immediately prior to the External Submission, then the allocation of the opportunity will be made pro rata on the basis of the size of the Internal Orders.
13. Applicants state that from time to time the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds may have opportunities to make Follow-On Investments
14. Applicants propose that Follow-On Investments would be divided into two categories depending on whether the prior investment was a Co-Investment Transaction or a Pre-Boarding Investment.
15. A Regulated Fund would be permitted to invest in Standard Review Follow-Ons either with the approval of the Required Majority under Condition 8(c) or without Board approval under Condition 8(b) if it is (i) a Pro Rata Follow-On Investment
16. Applicants propose that Dispositions
17. A Regulated Fund may participate in a Standard Review Disposition either with the approval of the Required Majority under Condition 6(d) or without Board approval under Condition 6(c) if (i) the Disposition is a Pro Rata Disposition
18. Applicants represent that under the terms and Conditions of the Application, all Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds participating in a Co-Investment Transaction will invest at the same time, for the same price and with the same terms, conditions, class, registration rights and any other rights, so that none of them receives terms more favorable than any other. However, the settlement date for an Affiliated Fund in a Co-Investment Transaction may occur up to ten business days after the settlement date for the Regulated Fund, and vice versa.
19. Under Condition 15, if an Adviser, its principals, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser or its principals, and the Affiliated Funds (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting shares of a Regulated Fund (the “Shares”), then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on matters specified in the Condition. Applicants believe that this Condition will ensure that the Independent Directors will act independently in evaluating Co-Investment Transactions, because the ability of the Adviser or its principals to influence the Independent Directors by a suggestion, explicit or implied, that the Independent Directors can be removed will be limited significantly. The Independent Directors shall evaluate and approve any independent party, taking into account its qualifications, reputation for independence, cost to the shareholders, and other factors that they deem relevant.
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit participation by a registered investment company and an affiliated person in any “joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan,” as defined in the rule, without prior approval by the Commission by order upon application. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies.
2. Similarly, with regard to BDCs, section 57(a)(4) of the Act generally prohibits certain persons specified in section 57(b) from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a company
3. Co-Investment Transactions are prohibited by either or both of Rule 17d-1 and Section 57(a)(4) without a prior exemptive order of the Commission to the extent that the Affiliated Funds and the Regulated Funds participating in such transactions fall within the category of persons described by Rule 17d-1 and/or Section 57(b), as applicable, vis-à-vis each participating Regulated Fund. Each of the participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds may be deemed to be affiliated persons vis-à-vis a Regulated Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) by reason of common control because (i) controlled affiliates of OCG manage each of the Affiliated Funds and may be deemed to control any Future Regulated Fund, (ii) OCG controls OCM LP, which manages OSI. Thus, each of the Affiliated Funds could be deemed to be a person related to OSI in a manner described by Section 57(b) and related to other Future Regulated Funds in a manner described by Rule 17d-1; and therefore the prohibitions of Rule 17d-1 and Section 57(a)(4) would apply respectively to prohibit the Affiliated Funds from participating in Co-Investment Transactions with the Regulated Funds.
4. In passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the company's participation in the joint transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
5. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief, in many circumstances the Regulated Funds would be limited in their ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment opportunities. Applicants state that, as required by Rule 17d-1(b), the Conditions ensure that the terms on which Co-Investment Transactions may be made will be consistent with the participation of the Regulated Funds being on a basis that it is neither different from nor less advantageous than other participants, thus protecting the equity holders of any participant from being disadvantaged. Applicants further state that the Conditions ensure that all Co-Investment Transactions are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Funds and their shareholders and do not involve overreaching by any person concerned, including the Advisers. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the Co-Investment Transactions in accordance with the Conditions will be consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and would be done in a manner that is not different from, or less advantageous than, that of other participants.
Applicants agree that the Order will be subject to the following Conditions:
1.
(a) The Advisers will establish, maintain and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that each Adviser is promptly notified of all Potential Co-Investment Transactions that fall within the then-current Objectives and Strategies and Board-Established Criteria of any Regulated Fund the Adviser manages.
(b) When an Adviser to a Regulated Fund is notified of a Potential Co-Investment Transaction under Condition 1(a), the Adviser will make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for the Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
2.
(a) If the Adviser deems a Regulated Fund's participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated Fund, it will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the Regulated Fund.
(b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the Advisers to be invested in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction by the participating Regulated Funds and any participating Affiliated Funds, collectively, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on the size of the Internal Orders, as described in section III.A.1.b. of the application. Each Adviser to a participating Regulated Fund will promptly notify and provide the Eligible Directors with information concerning the Affiliated Funds' and Regulated Funds' order sizes to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of the applicable Regulated Fund's investments for compliance with these Conditions.
(c) After making the determinations required in Condition 1(b) above, each Adviser to a participating Regulated Fund will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction (including the amount proposed to be invested by each participating Regulated Fund and each participating Affiliated Fund) to the Eligible Directors of its participating Regulated Fund(s) for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will enter into a Co-Investment Transaction with one or more other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds only if, prior to the Regulated Fund's participation in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
(i) The terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Fund and its equity holders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated Fund or its equity holders on the part of any person concerned;
(ii) the transaction is consistent with:
(A) The interests of the Regulated Fund's equity holders; and
(B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
(iii) the investment by any other Regulated Fund(s) or Affiliated Fund(s) would not disadvantage the Regulated Fund, and participation by the Regulated Fund would not be on a basis different from, or less advantageous than, that of any other Regulated Fund(s) or Affiliated Fund(s) participating in the transaction; provided that the Required Majority shall not be prohibited from reaching the conclusions required by this Condition 2(c)(iii) if:
(A) The settlement date for another Regulated Fund or an Affiliated Fund in a Co-Investment Transaction is later than the settlement date for the Regulated Fund by no more than ten business days or earlier than the settlement date for the Regulated Fund by no more than ten business days, in either case, so long as: (x) The date on which the commitment of the Affiliated Funds and Regulated Funds is made is the same; and (y) the earliest settlement date and the latest settlement date of any Affiliated Fund or Regulated Fund participating in the transaction will occur within ten business days of each other; or
(B) any other Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund itself, gains the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have a board observer or any similar right to participate in the governance or
(iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not involve compensation, remuneration or a direct or indirect
3.
4.
5.
6.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to such Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund will notify each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer of the proposed Disposition at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to participation by such Regulated Fund in the Disposition.
(b)
(c)
(i) (A) The participation of each Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund in such Disposition is proportionate to its then-current holding of the security (or securities) of the issuer that is (or are) the subject of the Disposition;
(ii) each security is a Tradable Security and (A) the Disposition is not to the issuer or any affiliated person of the issuer; and (B) the security is sold for cash in a transaction in which the only term negotiated by or on behalf of the participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds is price.
(d)
7.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to such Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund will notify each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer of the proposed Disposition at the earliest practical time;
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to participation by such Regulated Fund in the Disposition; and
(iii) the Advisers will provide to the Board of each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer all
(b)
(i) The Disposition complies with Conditions 2(c)(i), (ii), (iii)(A), and (iv); and
(ii) the making and holding of the Pre-Boarding Investments were not prohibited by Section 57 or Rule 17d-1, as applicable, and records the basis for the finding in the Board minutes.
(c)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
8.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to each such Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund will notify each Regulated Fund that holds securities of the portfolio company of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed investment, by such Regulated Fund.
(b)
(i) (A) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer or the security at issue, as appropriate,
(ii) it is a Non-Negotiated Follow-On Investment.
(c)
(d)
(i) The amount of the opportunity proposed to be made available to any Regulated Fund is not based on the Regulated Funds' and the Affiliated Funds' outstanding investments in the issuer or the security at issue, as appropriate, immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Advisers to be invested in the Follow-On Investment by the participating Regulated Funds and any participating Affiliated Funds, collectively, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, then the Follow-On Investment opportunity will be allocated among them
(e)
9.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to each such Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund will notify each Regulated Fund that holds
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed investment, by such Regulated Fund; and
(iii) the Advisers will provide to the Board of each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer all information relating to the existing investments in the issuer of the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds, including the terms of such investments and how they were made, that is necessary for the Required Majority to make the findings required by this Condition.
(b)
(c)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(d)
(i) The amount of the opportunity proposed to be made available to any Regulated Fund is not based on the Regulated Funds' and the Affiliated Funds' outstanding investments in the issuer or the security at issue, as appropriate, immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Advisers to be invested in the Follow-On Investment by the participating Regulated Funds and any participating Affiliated Funds, collectively, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, then the Follow-On Investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on the size of the Internal Orders, as described in section III.A.1.(b) of the application.
(e)
10.
(a) Each Adviser to a Regulated Fund will present to the Board of each Regulated Fund, on a quarterly basis, and at such other times as the Board may request, (i) a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Funds or any of the Affiliated Funds during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies and Board-Established Criteria that were not made available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why such investment opportunities were not made available to the Regulated Fund; (ii) a record of all Follow-On Investments in and Dispositions of investments in any issuer in which the Regulated Fund holds any investments by any Affiliated Fund or other Regulated Fund during the prior quarter; and (iii) all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including investments made by other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the Independent Directors, may determine whether all Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with the Conditions.
(b) All information presented to the Regulated Fund's Board pursuant to this Condition will be kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
(c) Each Regulated Fund's chief compliance officer, as defined in rule 38a-1(a)(4), will prepare an annual report for its Board each year that evaluates (and documents the basis of that evaluation) the Regulated Fund's compliance with the terms and Conditions of the application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance.
(d) The Independent Directors will consider at least annually whether continued participation in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend ICE Clear Europe's CDS Risk Policy relating to portfolio margining, as described below, to comply with Article 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No. 153/2013
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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 III below. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ICE Clear Europe proposes to adopt amendments to the CDS Risk Policy relating to portfolio margining. The changes discussed herein apply to all cleared credit default swap (“CDS”) products.
The amendments are intended to comply with the Portfolio Margining Limitation implementing the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (“EMIR”),
To implement the Portfolio Margining Limitation, ICE Clear Europe is amending its CDS Risk Policy such that when calculating the spread response charge (which provides portfolio margin
ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
The proposed amendments to the CDS Risk Policy would apply a 20% floor to the 99.5% VaR MC aspect of ICE Clear Credit's spread response margin component calculation, based on the gross margin requirement without portfolio offsets. The amendments are being made in order to comply with the Portfolio Margin Limitation imposed under EMIR, as set out in the ESMA Opinion, and may in some cases result in higher initial margin requirements for market participants. ICE Clear Europe believes that the amended requirement (as with the current methodology) represents an appropriate risk-based margin framework to take into account portfolio risk reduction and related portfolio effects in a manner that will continue to enable the clearing house to mitigate the risk of clearing member default. In ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments are therefore consistent with the requirements of the Act and Commission regulations set forth above.
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The changes are being proposed in order to implement that Portfolio Margining Limitation under EMIR. The amendments will affect all CDS Clearing Members and CDS market participants. ICE Clear Europe does not believe the amendments will impact competition among CDS Clearing Members or other market participants, or affect the ability of market participants to access clearing generally. As noted above, the amendments may increase initial margin requirements with respect to some portfolios, because of the limitation on margin reductions as compared to the current methodology. Although this may affect the cost of clearing for some market participants, any increased costs will reflect the requirements imposed under the EMIR Portfolio Margining Limitation and the risk management benefits for the clearing house that are designed to be obtained through the Portfolio Margining Limitation. As a result, ICE Clear Europe believes that any impact on competition is appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission or advance notice 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.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act and the relevant rules thereunder.
The Commission has reviewed the proposed rule change, including the changes to ICE Clear Europe's policies and procedures, as well as data on the estimated impact of the proposed rule change on margin requirements. Based on this review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is designed to implement a more conservative approach to portfolio margining reductions than under ICE Clear Europe's existing spread response calculation methodology and is therefore consistent with assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible. The approach is risk-based and does not impose unduly conservative margin requirements that would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
For the same reasons, the Commission further finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2),
Similarly, the Commission further finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).
In its filing, ICE Clear Europe requested that the Commission grant accelerated approval of the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act.
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act,
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A 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 list and trade the shares of Breakwave Dry Bulk Shipping ETF under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02 (“Trust Issued Receipts”). 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 following under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02, which governs the listing and trading of Trust Issued Receipts: Breakwave Dry Bulk Shipping ETF (the “Fund”).
The Fund will be a series of ETF Managers Group Commodity Trust I (the “Trust).
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund's investment objective will be to provide investors with exposure to the daily change in the price of dry bulk freight futures, before expenses and liabilities of the Fund, by tracking the performance of a portfolio (the “Benchmark Portfolio”) consisting of a three-month strip of the nearest calendar quarter of futures contracts on specified indexes (each a “Reference Index”) that measure rates for shipping dry bulk freight (“Freight Futures”). Each Reference Index is published daily by the London-based Baltic Exchange Ltd
The Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing substantially all of its assets in the Freight Futures currently constituting the Benchmark Portfolio. The Benchmark Portfolio will include all existing positions to maturity and settle them in cash. During any given calendar quarter, the Benchmark Portfolio will progressively increase its position to the next calendar quarter three-month strip, thus maintaining constant exposure to the Freight Futures market as positions mature.
The Benchmark Portfolio will maintain long-only positions in Freight Futures. The Benchmark Portfolio will hold a combination of Capesize, Panamax and Supramax Freight Futures. More specifically, the Benchmark Portfolio will hold 50% exposure in Capesize Freight Futures contracts, 40% exposure in Panamax Freight Futures contracts and 10% exposure in Supramax Freight Futures contracts. The Benchmark Portfolio will not include and the Fund will not invest in swaps, non-cleared dry bulk freight forwards or other over-the-counter
When establishing positions in Freight Futures, the Fund will be required to deposit initial margin with a value of approximately 10% to 40% of the notional value of each Freight Futures position at the time it is established. These margin requirements are established and subject to change from time to time by the relevant exchanges, clearing houses or the Fund's futures commission merchant (“FCM”). On a daily basis, the Fund will be obligated to pay, or entitled to receive, variation margin in an amount equal to the change in the daily settlement level of its Freight Futures positions. Any assets not required to be posted as margin with the FCM will be held at the Fund's custodian in cash or cash equivalents.
The Fund will seek to achieve its objective by purchasing Freight Futures that are cleared through major exchanges (see description of Freight Futures below). The Fund will place purchase orders for Freight Futures with an execution broker. The broker will identify a selling counterparty and, simultaneously with the completion of the transaction, will submit the block traded Freight Futures to the relevant exchange or clearing house for clearing, thereby completing and creating a cleared futures transaction. If the exchange or clearing house does not accept the transaction for any reason, the transaction will be considered null and void and of no legal effect. The Fund's investments in Freight Futures will be cleared by Nasdaq OMX-Stockholm AB, Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”), ICE Futures U.S., SGX and/or the European Energy Exchange (“EEX”).
The Benchmark Portfolio will initially consist of positions in the three-month strip of the nearest calendar quarter of Freight Futures and roll them constantly to the next calendar quarter. The four-calendar quarters are January, February, and March (Q1), April, May, and June (Q2), July, August, and September (Q3), and October, November and December (Q4). The Benchmark Portfolio will initially consist of an equal number of Freight Futures in each of the three months comprising the nearby calendar quarter at the beginning of such quarter.
Throughout the quarter, the Fund will attempt to roll positions in the nearby calendar quarter, on a pro rata basis. For example, if the Fund was currently holding the Q1 calendar quarter comprising the January, February and March monthly contracts, each week in the month of February, the Fund will attempt to purchase Q2 contracts in an amount equal to approximately one quarter of the expiring February positions. As a result, by the end of February, the Fund would have rolled the February position to Q2 contracts, leaving the Fund with March and Q2 contracts. At the end of March, the Fund will have completed the roll and will then hold only Q2 exposure comprising April, May and June monthly contracts. Since Freight Futures contracts are cash settled, the Fund need not sell out of existing contracts. Rather, it will hold such contracts to expiration and apply the above methodology in order acquire the nearby calendar contract.
The Benchmark Portfolio will be rebalanced annually. The Benchmark Portfolio's initial allocation will be approximately 50% Capesize Freight Futures contracts, 40% Panamax Freight Futures contracts and 10% Supramax Freight Futures contracts. The above allocation will be based on contract value, not number of lots. Given each asset's individual price movements during the year, such percentages might deviate from the targeted allocation.
During the month of December of each year, the Fund will rebalance its portfolio in order to bring the allocation of assets back to the desirable levels. During this period, the Fund would purchase or sell Freight Futures to achieve its targeted allocation.
The Sponsor anticipates that the Fund's Freight Futures positions will be held to expiration and settle in cash against the respective Reference Index as published by the Baltic Exchange. However, positions may be closed out to meet orders for redemption of baskets, in which case the proceeds from the closed positions will not be reinvested.
The Fund's portfolio will be traded with a view to reflecting the performance of Freight Futures, whether Freight Futures are rising, falling or flat over any particular period. To maintain the correlation between the Fund and the change in the Benchmark Portfolio, the Sponsor may adjust the Fund's portfolio of investments on a daily basis in response to creation and redemption orders or otherwise as required.
As stated in the Registration Statement, the following is a brief introduction of the global dry bulk freight industry. The data presented below is derived from information released from various third-party sources. The third-party sources from which certain of the information presented below include the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the Baltic and International Maritime Council, Bloomberg and others. Dry bulk shipping is a 150-plus year-old industry focusing on the transportation of dry bulk commodities using oceangoing vessels named dry bulk carriers. Dry bulk carriers are ships that have cargo loaded directly into the ship's storage holds. The cargos transported are dry commodities that do not need to be carried in packaged form. Dry commodity cargos (mainly iron ore, coal and grains) are homogenous and are loaded with bucket cranes, conveyors or pumps. Crude oil and refined products, while shipped in bulk, are wet cargos and are transported on tanker vessels, rather than dry bulk carriers. Dry bulk carriers have an average useful life of approximately 25 years and are measured on size or capacity in dead weight tons (“DWT”).
Capesizes (100,000+ DWT) are the largest of the dry bulk asset classes. Capesizes primarily transport iron ore and coal. Traditional Capesize routes are from Australia to Asia, and from Brazil to Europe and Asia. There are about 1,650 Capesizes worldwide. The Capesize fleet is about 40% of the dry bulk fleet by DWT capacity.
Panamaxes (65,000-100,000 DWT) primarily transport coal, grain and iron ore. The Panamax is the largest vessel class that can transit the (old) Panama Canal. There are about 2,500 Panamaxes worldwide representing 24% of the global fleet by capacity.
Handymaxes (40,000-65,000 DWT) are the work horse of the industry, carrying the whole spectrum of dry bulk commodities: Grain, coal, iron ore, and minor bulks. A sub-category of Handymaxes are vessels with capacities of 50,000-65,000 that are called Supramaxes. There are 3,400 Handymaxes worldwide representing about 25% of the global fleet by DWT capacity.
Handysizes (10,000-40,000 DWT) bulkers typically transport grain, coal,
According to the Registration Statement, there are approximately 10,500 dry bulk vessels worldwide with a carrying capacity of roughly 790 million DWT and an average age of approximately 8 years. Supply of dry bulk ships is dynamic.
Factors impacting dry bulk supply include new orders, the scrapping of older vessels, new shipbuilding technologies, vessel congestion in ports, closures of major waterways, including canals, and wars and other geopolitical conflicts that can restrict access to vessels available for shipping dry bulk freight.
According to the Registration Statement, dry bulk demand has seen steady growth over the past two decades, as the Asian economies have exhibited robust demand for raw materials on the back of strong economic growth. Iron ore, the main component of steel production, has been the main driver of dry bulk freight demand growth. The higher demand for such raw materials has led to increasing demand for dry bulk shipping, as the regions that produce and consume raw materials are located far apart.
Demand for dry bulk freight is generally measured in ton-miles, which corresponds to one ton of freight carried one mile. Such measure takes into consideration both the quantity of cargo transport but also the distance between loading and offloading ports. Over the last 10 years, dry bulk freight demand growth for major commodities has averaged approximately 6% per year. In 2015, dry bulk freight demand growth for major commodities declined for the first time in at least 15 years, while in 2016, it is estimated to have increased by approximately 2%. Weaker iron ore and coal imports to China were the main reasons for the below trend growth.
Factors impacting demand for shipping dry bulk freight include global economic growth, demand for iron ore, demand for metallurgical and thermal coal, demand for grains, government regulations, taxes and tariffs, fuel prices, vessel speeds and new trade routes.
According to the Registration Statement, dry bulk freight “charter rates” reflect the price paid for the use of the ship to transport a bulk commodity. The most commonly used freight rate is the timecharter rate, which is measured in U.S. Dollars per day. Dry bulk timecharter rates have exhibited significant volatility in the last 15 years. From 2003 to 2008, faster growth rates in demand for dry bulk ships was not matched by growth in supply of ships and thus, charter rates increased considerably, reaching their highest point in 2008. Following the global financial crisis, growth in supply of ships exceeded demand, leading to a considerable drop in charter rates. Over the last five years, rates have generally been weak compared to historical levels, as higher supply and relatively weak demand growth led to lower utilization rates in the industry.
A common industry measure of dry bulk rates is the Baltic Dry Index (“BDI”). The BDI is an economic indicator issued daily by the Baltic Exchange. The BDI provides an assessment of the price of moving the major raw materials by sea throughout the world. Taking in 21 shipping routes measured on a timecharter basis, the index covers Handysize, Supramax, Panamax, and Capesize dry bulk carriers carrying a range of commodities including coal, iron ore and grain. Each individual asset class also has its own index (
The BDI has reflected the volatility of charter rates over the last 15 years, reaching its highest point on record in 2008 at 11,793. In 2016, it reached its lowest point on record at 290. The average price of the BDI in the 15 years from 2001 to 2016, has been 2,567, and the median price has been 1,747. As of March 31, 2017, the BDI stood at 1,200.
According to the Registration Statement, freight futures are financial futures contracts that allow ship owners, charterers and speculators to hedge against the volatility of freight rates. The Freight Futures are built on indices composed of baskets of routes for dry bulk freight, such as the Capesize 5TC Index, Panamax 4TC Index and Supramax 6TC Index. Freight Futures are financial instruments that trade off-exchange but then are cleared through an exchange. Market participants communicate their buy or sell orders through a network of execution brokers mainly through phone or instant messaging platforms with specific trading instructions related to price, size, and type of order. The execution broker receives such order and then attempts to match it with a counterpart. Once there is a match and both parties confirm the transaction, the execution broker submits the transaction details including trade specifics, counterparty details and accounts to the relevant exchange for clearing, thus completing a cleared block futures transaction. The exchange will then require the relevant member or FCM to submit the necessary margin to support the position similar to other futures clearing and margin requirements.
Freight Futures are listed and cleared on the following exchanges: Nasdaq OMX-Stockholm AB, CME, ICE Futures U.S., SGX, and EEX.
Freight Futures settle monthly over the arithmetic average of spot index assessments in the contract month for the relevant underlying product, rounded to one decimal place. The daily index publication, against which Freight Futures settle, is published by the Baltic Exchange.
Generally, Freight Futures trade from approximately 12:00 a.m. Eastern Time (“E.T.”) to approximately 12:00 p.m. E.T. The great majority of trading volume occurs during London business hours, from approximately 3:00 a.m. E.T. time to approximately 12:00 p.m. E.T. Some limited trading takes place during Asian business hours as well (12:00 a.m.-3:00 a.m. E.T.).
Exchanges have a cutoff time of 1:00 p.m. E.T. for clearing the respective day's trades (SGX clears Freight Futures from 7:00 p.m. E.T. to 3:00 a.m. E.T.). The final closing prices for settlement are published daily around 1:30 p.m. E.T. Final cash settlement occurs the first business day following the expiry day.
Freight Futures are quoted in U.S. Dollars per day, with a minimum lot size of one. One lot represents one day of freight costs, as freight rates are measured in U.S. Dollars per day. The nominal value of a contract is simply the product of lots and Freight Futures prices. There are Futures Contracts of up to 72 consecutive months, starting with the current month, available for trading for each vessel class.
Similar to other futures, Freight Futures are subject to margin requirements by the relevant exchanges. The Sponsor anticipates that approximately 10% to 40% of the Fund's assets will be used as payment for or collateral for Freight Futures contracts. In order to collateralize its Freight Futures positions, the Fund will hold such assets, from which it will post margin to its FCM in an amount equal to the margin required by the relevant
According to the Registration Statement, most of the daily trading takes place over phones and instant messaging platforms.
The Fund's NAV will be calculated by taking the current market value of its total assets, subtracting any liabilities; and dividing that total by the total number of outstanding Shares.
The Administrator will calculate the NAV of the Fund once each NYSE Arca trading day. The NAV for a particular trading day will be released after 4:00 p.m. E.T. The Administrator will use the Baltic Exchange closing price for the Freight Futures, but will calculate or determine the value of all other Fund investments using market quotations, if available, or other information customarily used to determine the fair value of such investments as of the earlier of the close of the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session (normally 4:00 p.m. E.T.). The information may include costs of funding, to the extent costs of funding are not and would not be a component of the other information being utilized. Third parties supplying quotations or market data may include, without limitation, dealers in the relevant markets, end-users of the relevant product, information vendors, brokers and other sources of market information.
In order to provide updated information relating to the Fund for use by investors and market professionals, an updated indicative fund value (“IFV”) will be made available through on-line information services throughout the Exchange Core Trading Session (normally 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., E.T.) on each trading day. The IFV will be calculated by using the prior day's closing NAV per Share of the Fund as a base and updating that value throughout the trading day to reflect changes in the most recently reported trade price for the futures and/or options held by the Fund. The IFV disseminated during NYSE Arca Core Trading Session hours should not be viewed as an actual real time update of the NAV, because the NAV will be calculated only once at the end of each trading day based upon the relevant end of day values of the Fund's investments.
The IFV will be disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during regular NYSE Arca Core Trading Session hours of 9:30 a.m. E.T. to 4:00 p.m. E.T. The customary trading hours of the Freight Futures trading are 3:00 a.m. E.T. to 12:00 p.m. E.T. This means that there is a gap in time at the end of each day during which the Fund's Shares will be traded on the NYSE Arca, but real-time trading prices for contracts are not available. During such gaps in time the IFV will be calculated based on the end of day price of such contracts from the Baltic Exchange's immediately preceding trading session. In addition, other investments and U.S. Treasuries held by the Fund will be valued by the Administrator using rates and points received from client-approved third party vendors (such as Reuters and WM Company) and broker-dealer quotes. These investments will not be included in the IFV.
Dissemination of the IFV provides additional information that is not otherwise available to the public and is useful to investors and market professionals in connection with the trading of the Fund's Shares on the NYSE Arca. Investors and market professionals are able throughout the trading day to compare the market price of Fund Shares and the IFV. If the market price of the Fund Shares diverges significantly from the IFV, market professionals will have an incentive to execute arbitrage trades. For example, if the Fund's Shares appears to be trading at a discount compared to the IFV, a market professional could buy the Fund's Shares on the NYSE Arca and take the opposite position in Freight Futures. Such arbitrage trades can tighten the tracking between the market price of the Fund's Shares and the IFV and thus can be beneficial to all market participants.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will create and redeem Shares from time to time in one or more “Creation Baskets” or “Redemption Baskets” (collectively, the “Baskets”). A Basket consists of 50,000 Shares. The creation and redemption of Baskets will only be made in exchange for delivery to the Fund or the distribution by the Fund of the amount of Treasuries and any cash represented by the Baskets being created or redeemed, the amount of which is based on the combined NAV of the number of Shares included in the Baskets being created or redeemed determined as of 4:00 p.m. E.T. on the day the order to create or redeem Baskets is properly received.
“Authorized Participants” are the only persons that may place orders to create and redeem Baskets. Authorized Participants must be (1) registered broker-dealers or other securities market participants, such as banks and other financial institutions, that are not required to register as broker-dealers to engage in securities transactions described below, and (2) Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) participants.
On any business day, an Authorized Participant may place an order with the Transfer Agent to create one or more Baskets. For purposes of processing purchase and redemption orders, a “business day” means any day other than a day when any of the NYSE Arca, the Baltic Exchange or the New York Stock Exchange is closed for regular trading. Purchase orders must be placed by 1:00 p.m. E.T. or the close of the Core Trading Session on NYSE Arca, whichever is earlier. The day on which a valid purchase order is received in accordance with the terms of the “Authorized Participant Agreement” is referred to as the purchase order date. Purchase orders are irrevocable.
The total payment required to create each Creation Basket is the NAV of 50,000 Shares on the purchase order date, but only if the required payment is timely received. To calculate the NAV, the Administrator will use the Baltic Exchange settlement price (typically determined after 2:00 p.m. E.T.) for the Freight Futures. Because orders to purchase Baskets must be placed no later than 1:00 p.m., E.T., but
An Authorized Participant who places a purchase order shall transfer to the Administrator the required amount of Freight Futures, U.S. Treasuries and/or cash, or a combination of them, by the end of the next business day following the purchase order date. Upon receipt of the deposit amount, the Administrator will direct DTC to credit the number of Baskets ordered to the Authorized Participant's DTC account on the next business day following the purchase order date.
According to the Registration Statement, the procedures by which an Authorized Participant can redeem one or more Baskets will mirror the procedures for the creation of Baskets. On any business day, an Authorized Participant may place an order with the Transfer Agent, and accepted by the Distributor, to redeem one or more Baskets. Redemption orders must be placed by 1:00 p.m. E.T. or the close of the Core Trading Session on the NYSE Arca, whichever is earlier. A redemption order so received will be effective on the date it is received in satisfactory form in accordance with the terms of the Authorized Participant Agreement. The day on which the Marketing Agent receives a valid redemption order is the redemption order date. Redemption orders are irrevocable. By placing a redemption order, an Authorized Participant agrees to deliver the baskets to be redeemed through DTC's book-entry system to the Fund not later than 1:00 p.m., E.T., on the next business day immediately following the redemption order date.
The redemption proceeds from the Fund will consist of a cash redemption amount equal to the NAV of the number of Baskets requested in the Authorized Participant's redemption order on the redemption order date.
Because orders to redeem Baskets must be placed no later than 1:00 p.m., E.T., but the total amount of redemption proceeds typically will not be determined until after 2:00 p.m., E.T., on the date the redemption order is received, Authorized Participants will not know the total amount of the redemption proceeds at the time they submit an irrevocable redemption order.
The redemption proceeds due from the Fund will be delivered to the Authorized Participant at 1:00 p.m., E.T., on the next business day immediately following the redemption order date if, by such time, the Fund's DTC account has been credited with the Baskets to be redeemed.
The NAV for the Fund's Shares will be disseminated daily to all market participants at the same time. The intraday, closing prices, and settlement prices of the Freight Futures will be readily available from the applicable futures exchange Web sites, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or major market data vendors.
Complete real-time data for Freight Futures is available by subscription through on-line information services. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”). The IFV will be available through on-line information services. The Freight Futures trading prices will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session of 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. E.T. Nasdaq OMX-Stockholm AB, SGX, CME, ICE Futures US and EEX provide on a daily basis, transaction volumes, transaction prices, trade time, and open interest on their respective Web sites. In addition, historical data also exists for volumes and open interest. Daily settlement prices and historical settlement prices are available through a subscription service to the Baltic Exchange, which maintains the licensing rights of relevant freight data. However, the exchanges provide the daily settlement price change of Freight Futures on their respective Web sites. Certain Freight Futures brokers provide real time pricing information to the general public either through their Web sites or through data vendors such as Bloomberg or Reuters. Most Freight Futures brokers provide, upon request, individual electronic screens that market participants can use to transact, place orders or only monitor Freight Futures market price levels.
In addition, the Fund's Web site,
The daily closing Benchmark Portfolio level and the percentage change in the daily closing level for the Benchmark Portfolio will be publicly available from one or more major market data vendors. The intraday value of the Benchmark Portfolio, updated every 15 seconds, will also be available through major market data vendors.
This Web site disclosure of the Benchmark Portfolio's and the Fund's daily holdings will occur at approximately the same time as the disclosure by the Trust of the daily holdings to Authorized Participants so that all market participants are provided daily holdings information at approximately the same time. Therefore, the same holdings information will be provided on the public Web site as well as in electronic files provided to Authorized Participants. Accordingly, each investor will have access to the current daily holdings of the Fund through the Fund's Web site.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund.
The Exchange may halt trading during the day in which an interruption to the dissemination of the IFV or the value of the Benchmark Portfolio occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the IFV, or the value of the Benchmark Portfolio persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. E.T. in accordance with NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E (Early, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Rule 7.6-E, 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.
The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E. The trading of the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02(e), which sets forth certain restrictions on Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holders acting as registered Market Makers in Trust Issued Receipts to facilitate surveillance. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Funds will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
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 all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and Freight Futures 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 and Freight Futures from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and Freight Futures from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“CSSA”).
Not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund in the aggregate invested in Freight Futures shall consist of Freight Futures whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a CSSA.
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 portfolios, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange.
The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund 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 Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Rule 5.5-E(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 risks involved in trading the Shares during the Early and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IFV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (2) the procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Baskets and Redemption Baskets (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (3) NYSE Arca Rule 9.2-E(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; (4) how information regarding the IFV is disseminated; (5) how information regarding portfolio holdings is disseminated; (6) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (7) trading information.
In addition, the Information Bulletin will advise ETP Holders, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Fund. The Exchange notes that investors purchasing Shares directly from the Fund will receive a prospectus. ETP Holders purchasing Shares from the Fund for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Bulletin will also discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. In addition, the Information Bulletin will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Bulletin will also reference that the CFTC has regulatory jurisdiction over the trading of Freight Futures traded on U.S. markets.
The Information Bulletin will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares and that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4:00 p.m. E.T. each trading day. The Information Bulletin will disclose that information about the Shares will be publicly available on the Fund's Web site.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders of the suitability requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 9.2-E(a) in an Information Bulletin. Specifically, ETP Holders will be
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 Rule 8.200-E. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares of the Fund in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and Freight Futures 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 and Freight Futures from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and Freight Futures from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA.
Complete real-time data for the Freight Futures is available by subscription from on-line information services. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the CTA. The IFV will be available through on-line information services. The Freight Futures trading prices will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors every 15 seconds during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session of 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. E.T. Nasdaq OMX-Stockholm AB, SGX, CME, ICE Futures US and EEX provide on a daily basis, transaction volumes, transaction prices, trade time, and open interest on their respective Web sites. In addition, the Fund's Web site, will display the applicable end of day closing NAV. The daily holdings of the Fund will be disclosed on the Fund's Web site before 9:30 a.m. E.T. each day. The daily holdings of the Fund will be available on the Fund's Web site before 9:30 a.m. E.T. each day. The Fund's Web site disclosure of portfolio holdings will be made daily and will include, as applicable, (i) the composite value of the total portfolio, (ii) the quantity and type of each holding (including the ticker symbol, maturity date or other identifier, if any) and other descriptive information including, in the case of an option, its strike price, (iii) the value of each Freight Futures (in U.S. dollars), (iv) the type (including maturity, ticker symbol, or other identifier) and value of each Treasury security and cash equivalent, and (v) the amount of cash held in the Fund's portfolio.
Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Rule 7.12-E have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable.
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 Trust Issued Receipts based on Freight Futures 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 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 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 will facilitate the listing and trading of a new type of Trust Issued Receipts based on Freight Futures and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
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,
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 3.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Texas (FEMA-4332-DR), dated 09/04/2017.
Issued on 09/19/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Texas, dated 09/04/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4339-DR), dated 09/20/2017.
Issued on 09/20/2017.
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 President's major disaster declaration on 09/20/2017, 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 153228 and for economic injury is 153230.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4335-DR), dated 09/07/2017.
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.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the U.S. Virgin Islands, dated 09/07/2017, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 09/05/2017 through 09/07/2017.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4335-DR), dated 09/15/2017.
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.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the U.S. Virgin Islands, dated 09/15/2017, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 09/05/2017 through 09/07/2017.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4340-DR), dated 09/20/2017.
Issued on 09/20/2017.
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 President's major disaster declaration on 09/20/2017, 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 153208 and for economic injury is 153210.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4336-DR), dated 09/10/2017.
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.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, dated 09/10/2017, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 09/05/2017 through 09/07/2017.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 3.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4336-DR), dated 09/10/2017.
Issued on 09/18/2017.
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.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, dated 09/10/2017, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 09/05/2017 through 09/07/2017.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Pursuant to section 7045(c)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017 (Div. J, Pub. L. 115-31), I hereby certify that the central Government of Haiti is taking effective steps, which are in addition to steps taken since the certification and report submitted on April 4, 2016, if applicable, to:
• Strengthen the rule of law in Haiti, including by selecting judges in a transparent manner based on merit; reducing pre-trial detention; respecting the independence of the judiciary; and improving governance by implementing reforms to increase transparency and accountability, including through the penal and criminal codes;
• combat corruption, including by implementing the anti-corruption law enacted in 2014 and prosecuting corrupt officials;
• increase government revenues, including by implementing tax reforms, and increase expenditures on public services; and
• resolve commercial disputes between United States entities and the Government of Haiti.
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 30, 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 G. Kevin Saba, Director, Office of Policy and Program Support, ECA/EC, SA-5, Floor 5, U.S. Department of State, 2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-0505, who may be reached 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.
The collection is the continuation of information collected and needed by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in administering the Exchange Visitor Program (J-Nonimmigrant) under the provisions of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2451
Access to Form DS-2019 is made available to Department-designated sponsors electronically via the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS).
Scrap Metal Services Terminal Railroad Company (Illinois), LLC (SMSRRIL), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire by lease from Scrap Metal Services, LLC (SMS), and to operate,
According to SMSRRIL, there are no mileposts associated with the Burnham Transload Facility trackage. SMSRRIL states that the trackage is used in conjunction with interchanging to and from Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad carloads of scrap metals for transloading into trucks for delivery to steel producing mills.
SMSRRIL asserts that, because the trackage in question will constitute the entire line of railroad of SMSRRIL, this trackage is a line of railroad under 49 U.S.C. 10901, rather than spur, switching, or side tracks excepted from Board acquisition and operation authority by virtue of 49 U.S.C. 10906.
Although SMSRRIL states in its verified notice that the operations were proposed to be consummated on or about September 1, 2017, this transaction may not be consummated until October 12, 2017 (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
SMSRRIL certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction do not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million. SMSRRIL also certifies that there are no provisions or agreements that may limit future interchange commitments.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than October 5, 2017 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36144, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on SMSRRIL's representative, David C. Dillon, Dillon & Nash, Ltd.,
According to SMSRRIL, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.
Eighty Sixth RTCA SC-147 Plenary Session.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Eighty Sixth RTCA SC-147 Plenary Session. This is a subcommittee to RTCA.
December 7, 2017.
The meeting will be held at: Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory at 11100 Johns Hopkins Rd, Laurel, MD 20723.
Al Secen at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Eighty Sixth RTCA SC-147 Plenary Session. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of cancellation of preparation of Environmental Impact Statement.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces that it has discontinued preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a construction of a Replacement General Aviation Airport for Mesquite, Nevada. On November 14, 2011, FAA published a notice of suspension of the EIS in the
David B. Kessler, AICP, Regional Environmental Protection Specialist, AWP-610.1, Airports Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, Telephone: 310-725-3615.
On December 8, 2004, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Notice of Intent in the
On September 27, 2011, the FAA received a letter from the City of Mesquite, asking the FAA to suspend any additional work on the EIS for the proposed Replacement GA Airport EIS. The City of Mesquite explained the postponement was based on local economic conditions and other local fiscal and budgetary constraints.
On November 14, 2011, FAA published a notice of Suspension of the EIS in the
The Mesquite Lands Act of 1988, as amended (Pub. L. 99-549) provided the City with the opportunity to select a specified number of acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management to build a replacement airport on the Mormon Mesa. Since Public Law 99-549 expired, the federal land on the Mormon Mesa for the replacement airport is no longer available. The original purpose and need to change the land use of the existing airport to residential land use and replace the airport no longer exists. There is no demonstrated aeronautical need for the replacement airport and the information in the 2008 Draft EIS is also no longer valid. Thus, FAA is terminating this EIS.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Twenty Seventh RTCA SC-222 Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Twenty Seventh RTCA SC-222 Plenary. This is a subcommittee to RTCA.
The meeting will be held November 2, 2017 08:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m.
The meeting will be held Virtually:
Karan Hofmann at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Twenty Seventh RTCA SC-222 Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
1. Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.
RTCA PMC Program Management Committee meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting. This is a subcommittee to RTCA.
The meeting will be held on December 19, 2017 08:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Karan Hofmann at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting. The agenda will include the following:
1.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Forty Ninth RTCA SC-206 Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Forty Ninth RTCA SC-206 Plenary. This is a subcommittee to RTCA.
The meeting will be held December 4-8, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: Harris Corporation, 2235 Monroe Street, Herndon, VA 20170.
Karan Hofmann at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Forty Ninth RTCA SC-206 Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Fifty Second RTCA SC-224 Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Fifty Second RTCA SC-224 Plenary. This is a subcommittee to RTCA.
The meeting will be held October 24, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Karan Hofmann at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Fifty Second RTCA SC-224 Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
1.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Revised notice of a non-aeronautical land-use change.
This Notice revises “Notice of Land Use Change and Release of Grant Assurance Restrictions at the Sacramento International Airport”, June 14, 2016, Page 38772. The previous Notice proposed to rule and invite public comment on the application for a land-use change for approximately 31.1 acres of airport property at Sacramento International Airport (SMF), California. The parcel size has changed from 31.1 acres to approximately 35.32 acres of airport property. The land use change will allow airport land to be released from the aeronautical use provisions of the Grant Assurances that require it to serve an airport purposes since the land is not needed for aeronautical uses. The reuse of the land for energy generating solar arrays represents a compatible land use that will not interfere with the airport or its operations. The solar generated electricity will benefit the airport by producing a market return on the land while reducing electrical costs. Cost savings will equal or exceed the fair market rental value of the land occupied by the solar farms. These benefits will serve the interest of civil aviation and contribute to the self-sustainability of the airport.
Comments must be received on or before October 30, 2017.
Comments on the request may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. James W. Lomen, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, San Francisco Airports District Office, Federal Register Comment, 1000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 220, Brisbane, CA 94005. In addition, one copy of the comment submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Glen Rickelton, Airport Manager, Sacramento International Airport, 6900 Airport Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95837.
In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be published in the
The following is a brief overview of the request:
The County of Sacramento, California request for a modification to the conditions in the Grant Assurances to permit the non-aeronautical use of approximately 31.1 acres of land at Sacramento International Airport for two separate solar array sites to produce solar generated electricity was revised from 31.1 acres to approximately 35.3 acres of airport land. One solar array site was changed from 16.3 acres to 20.3 acres of unimproved land located in the north portion of the airfield, west of Taxiway D. The other solar array site was changed from 14.8 acres to 15.0 acres of an unused parking area between Aviation Drive and Taxiway D in the south portion of the airfield. The size of the solar arrays did not change. Reuse of the land for the solar arrays will not impede future development of the airport as there is sufficient land for airport development. The lease rate is based on the appraised market value of the land. Compensation will be in the form of a reduced electrical rate that will produce cost savings that equals or exceeds the appraised market value of the land. The use of the property for the solar arrays represents a compatible use. Construction and operations of the solar arrays will not interfere with airport operations. The solar arrays will reduce airport operational costs, which will enhance the self-sustainability of the airport and, thereby, serve the interest of civil aviation.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites comments on 11 information collections pertaining to hazardous materials transportation for which PHMSA intends to request renewal from the Office of Management and Budget. On April 21, 2017, PHMSA published a notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on these ICRs [82 FR 18828] under Docket No. PHMSA-2017-0018 (Notice No. 2017-01). PHMSA received one comment; however, it was outside the scope of the April 21, 2017, notice.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 30, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. PHMSA-2017-0018 (Notice No. 2017-05) by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Requests for a copy of an information collection should be directed to Steven Andrews or T. Glenn Foster, Standards and Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Steven Andrews or T. Glenn Foster, Standards and Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Section 1320.8(d), title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies information collection requests that PHMSA will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal and extension. These information collections are contained in 49 CFR 171.6 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). PHMSA has revised burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting levels or adjustments based on changes in proposed or final rules published since the information collections were last approved. The following is provided for each information collection: (1) Title of the information collection, including former title if a change is being made; (2) OMB control number; (3) summary of the information collection activity; (4) description of affected public; (5) estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (6) frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a 3-year term of approval for each information collection activity and will publish a notice in the
PHMSA requests comments on the following 11 information collections:
1.
2.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The information collected under these application procedures is used in the review process by PHMSA in determining the merits of the petitions for rulemakings and for reconsideration of rulemakings, as well as applications for special permits, preemption determinations, and waivers of preemption to the HMR. The procedures governing these petitions for rulemaking and for reconsideration of rulemakings are covered in subpart B of part 106. Applications for special permits, preemption, determinations, and waivers of preemption are covered under subparts B and C of part 107. Rulemaking procedures help PHMSA determine if a rule change is necessary, is consistent with public interest, and maintains a level of safety equal to or superior to that of current regulations. Special permit procedures provide the information required for analytical purposes to determine if the requested relief provides for a comparable level of safety as provided by the HMR. Additionally, PHMSA uses information from preemption procedures to determine whether a requirement of a State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe is preempted under 49 U.S.C. 5125, or regulations issued thereunder, or whether a waiver of preemption should be issued.
3.
4.
5.
(1)
(2)
(3)
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
There are several approval provisions contained in the HMR and associated procedural regulations. Responses to these information collections are required to obtain benefits, such as becoming an approval or certification agency, or to obtain a variance from packaging or handling requirements based on information provided by the respondent. These benefits and variances involve areas, for example, such as UN third-party certification; authorization to examine and test lighters; authorization to examine and test explosives; and authorization to re-qualify DOT cylinders.
11.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of emergency waiver order.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is issuing an emergency waiver order to persons conducting operations under the direction of Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 or United States Coast Guard 7th District within the Hurricane Maria emergency and disaster areas of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. This Waiver Order is effective September 22, 2017, and shall remain in effect for 30 days from the date of issuance.
Adam Horsley, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, telephone: (202) 366-4400.
In accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5103(c), the Acting Administrator for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), hereby declares that an emergency exists that warrants issuance of a Waiver of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR, 49 CFR parts 171-180) to persons conducting operations under the direction of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 (290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866) or United States Coast Guard (USCG) 7th District (Brickell Plaza Federal Building, 909 SE 1st Avenue, Miami, FL 33131-3050) within the Hurricane Maria emergency and disaster areas of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. The Waiver is granted to support EPA and USCG in taking appropriate actions to prepare for, respond to, and recover from a threat to public health, welfare, or the environment caused by actual or potential oil and hazardous materials incidents resulting from Hurricane Maria.
On September 18, 2017, the President issued an Emergency Declarations for Hurricane Maria for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (EM-3391) and the United States Virgin Islands (EM-3390). On September 20, 2017, the President issued a Major Disaster Declaration for the United States Virgin Islands (DR-4340).
This Waiver Order covers all areas identified in the declarations, as amended. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5103(c), PHMSA has authority delegated by the Secretary (49 CFR 1.97(b)(3)) to waive compliance with any part of the HMR provided that the grant of the waiver is: (1) In the public interest; (2) not inconsistent with the safety of transporting hazardous materials; and (3) necessary to facilitate the safe movement of hazardous materials into, from, and within an area of a major disaster or emergency that has been declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
Given the continuing impacts caused by Hurricane Maria, PHMSA's Acting Administrator has determined that regulatory relief is in the public interest and necessary to ensure the safe transportation in commerce of hazardous materials while EPA and USCG execute their recovery and cleanup efforts in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. Specifically, PHMSA's Acting Administrator finds that issuing this Waiver Order will allow EPA and USCG to conduct their emergency support function under the National Response Framework to safely remove, transport, and dispose of hazardous materials. By execution of this Waiver Order, persons conducting operations under the direction of EPA Region 2 or USCG 7th District within the Hurricane Maria emergency and disaster areas of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands are authorized to offer and transport non-radioactive hazardous materials under alternative safety
This Waiver Order is effective September 22, 2017, and shall remain in effect for 30 days from the date of issuance.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites comments on an information collection pertaining to hazardous materials transportation for which PHMSA intends to request renewal from the Office of Management and Budget.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 27, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. PHMSA-2017-0073 (Notice No. 2017-04), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Requests for a copy of an information collection should be directed to Steven Andrews or T. Glenn Foster, Standards and Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Steven Andrews or T. Glenn Foster, Standards and Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Section 1320.8 (d), title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies an information collection request that PHMSA will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal and extension. This information collection is contained in 49 CFR 171.6 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). PHMSA has revised burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting levels or adjustments based on changes in proposed or final rules published since the information collection was last approved. The following information is provided for this information collection: (1) Title of the information collection, including former title if a change is being made; (2) OMB control number; (3) summary of the information collection activity; (4) description of affected public; (5) estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (6) frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity and will publish a notice in the
PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
Shipping papers serve as the principal source of information regarding the presence of hazardous materials, identification, quantity, and emergency response procedures. They inform on compliance with other requirements (
The availability of accurate information concerning hazardous materials being transported significantly improves response efforts in these types of emergencies.
Veterans Experience Office (VEO), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Experience Office (VEO), 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
Marcelle Saab 202-461-0000.
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, VEO invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VEO's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VEO's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veteran's 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.
Executive Order 12436 “Payment of Certain Benefits to Survivors of Persons Who Died In or As A Result of Military Service” (found at 42 U.S.C. 402 (Note)) directs VA administer the provisions of Public Law 97-377 Section 156. VA codified this authority at 38 CFR 3.812.
VBA uses VA Form 21-8941 to verify a REPS beneficiary's entitlement factors including annual earnings, marital status, and the status of children. The form is completed annually by beneficiaries who have earned income that is at or near the limit of earned income. Benefits may be reduced or increased based on the beneficiary's responses.
The VA Form number is being changed to “21P-8941” to reflect Pension and Fiduciary Service's responsibility for the form.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veteran's 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.
Executive Order 12436 “Payment of Certain Benefits to Survivors of Persons Who Died In or As A Result of Military Service” (found at 42 U.S.C. 402 (Note)) directs VA administer the provisions of Public Law 97-377 Section 156. VA codified this authority at 38 CFR 3.812.
VBA uses VA Forms 21-8938 and 21-8938-1 to verify that a surviving child who is receiving REPS benefits based on schoolchild status is in fact enrolled full-time in an approved school and is otherwise eligible for continued benefits. VA Form 21-8938 is generated by VA's central computer system each March and sent to all student beneficiaries. If the completed form is not received by the end of May, the beneficiary is sent a system-generated due process letter with another VA Form 21-8938. VBA uses VA Form 21-8938-1 if another copy of the form is needed by a respondent.
The VA Form number is being changed to “21P-8941” to reflect Pension and Fiduciary Service's responsibility for the form.
By direction of the Secretary.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This final rule adopts, with several changes, proposed amendments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations regarding changes to the in-bond process published in the
This rule is effective on November 27, 2017.
James Swanson, Director, Cargo Security and Controls, Cargo Conveyance & Security, Office of Field Operations, (202) 325-1257.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1552 and 19 U.S.C. 1553, merchandise may be entered at a U.S. port of entry, without appraisement or the payment of duties, for transportation to another port for entry, or for exportation, provided that all statutory and regulatory conditions are met. The applicable regulations governing the transportation of in-bond merchandise under the above authorities are set forth in title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR), parts 18, 122, and 123. Part 18 covers “Transportation in bond and merchandise in transit”; part 122 covers “Air Commerce regulations”; and part 123 covers “CBP relations with Canada and Mexico.” For a detailed discussion of the statutory and regulatory histories, and the factors governing development of these regulations, see the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), “Changes to the In-Bond Process,” published in the
Generally, when merchandise reaches the United States, the merchandise may
There are three types of in-bond transportation entries: Immediate Transportation (IT), Transportation and Exportation (T&E), and Immediate Exportation (IE). An IT entry allows merchandise upon its arrival at a U.S. port to be transported to another U.S. port, where a subsequent entry must be filed.
On February 22, 2012, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a NPRM titled “Changes to the In-Bond Process” in the
CBP proposed making the following five major changes to the in-bond process: (1) Except for merchandise transported by pipeline and truck shipments transiting the United States from Canada, eliminate the paper in-bond application (CBP Form 7512) and require carriers or their agents to electronically file the in-bond application; (2) require additional information on the in-bond application including the six-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States number if available; (3) establish a 30-day maximum transit time to transport in-bond merchandise between U.S. ports, for all modes of transportation except pipeline; (4) require carriers to electronically request and receive permission from CBP before diverting in-bond merchandise from its intended destination port to another port; and (5) require carriers to report the arrival and location of the in-bond merchandise within 24 hours of arrival at the port of destination or port of exportation. CBP did not propose changing the in-bond procedures found in the air commerce regulations at 19 CFR part 122, subparts J and L, except to change the specified maximum transit and export times to conform to the proposed changes in Part 18. For a detailed discussion of the proposed changes to the regulations and the GAO Report see the NPRM.
CBP requested public comments on the NPRM. In response, CBP received 51 comments from the trade community including carriers, brokers, importers, freight forwarders, zone operators, and trade groups. The comments were generally favorable to the rule as a whole. However, commenters raised concerns about specific proposed amendments and how the amendments would affect their operations. Many comments and questions related to the automated systems for the electronic filing of in-bond transactions. After consideration of all the comments, CBP has decided to issue this final rule, which adopts the proposed amendments with several changes in response to the comments. The main changes are summarized in Section I.B., Summary of Main Changes from NPRM, and explained in more detail in Section II, Discussion of Comments. Additional technical and conforming changes are also explained in Section II, Discussion of Comments. CBP is also adding a flexible implementation and enforcement period, as described in Section I.C.
CBP received many comments regarding the proposed requirement that all in-bond movements must be completed within 30 days. Specifically, commenters expressed concern that due to the specific circumstances of barge transportation, it is not feasible for all in-bond shipments transported by barge to be completed within 30 days and stated that the current 60-day in-bond barge transit time should be maintained. The specific comments are addressed in more detail in Section II, Discussion of Comments.
Because of the unique nature of barge transportation and because of the various factors that can delay barge shipments, CBP is changing proposed § 18.1(i)(1) in the final rule to extend the in-transit time for in-bond merchandise transported by barge to 60 days, while maintaining the proposed 30-day transit time for the other modes of transportation.
The current regulations require the bonded carrier to report to CBP the arrival of any portion of the in-bond shipment promptly, but no more than two working days after the arrival of the merchandise at the port of destination or the port of exportation. The bonded carrier generally must manually surrender the in-bond document, CBP Form 7512, to the port director, as notice of arrival of the merchandise.
To allow for better tracking, CBP proposed to amend §§ 18.1, 18.7, and 18.20 to require that the report of arrival for each in-bond shipment be made within 24 hours of the arrival of the merchandise at the port of destination or the port of exportation and to require the delivering bonded carrier to transmit the notice of arrival electronically via a CBP-approved EDI system. CBP also proposed that when in-bond merchandise is exported, CBP be notified of the export within 24 hours of export.
CBP received many comments expressing concern that the requirement to report the arrival of merchandise within 24 hours of arrival would result in firms having to increase their staffing levels and suggested that CBP retain or extend the current two-day reporting requirement. The specific comments are discussed in Section II, Discussion of Comments.
CBP proposed shortening the above timeframes to improve CBP's ability to track in-bond merchandise. However, after further consideration and a review of the comments, CBP decided not to shorten the reporting timeframe. Therefore, CBP is changing proposed § 18.1(j) in the final rule to retain the current time limit of two working days for bonded carriers to report the arrival of merchandise at the port of destination or port of exportation with one technical change. CBP is also changing proposed § 18.7(a)(3) regarding the timeframe for submitting the notice of export from 24 hours to two business days. In addition, CBP is changing all the provisions in
CBP received many comments about the proposed required information on the in-bond application as specified in proposed § 18.1(d)(1). Among other things, CBP proposed requiring the six-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) number if the number is available. If the six-digit HTSUS number is not available, then a detailed description must be provided setting forth the exact nature of the merchandise with sufficient detail to enable CBP and other government agencies to determine if the merchandise is subject to a rule, regulation, law, standard or ban relating to health, safety or conservation. CBP also proposed that if the carrier or other responsible party submitting the in-bond application knows that the merchandise is subject to a rule, regulation, law, standard or ban relating to health, safety or conservation enforced by CBP or another government agency, a statement must be provided setting forth the rule, regulation, law, standard or ban to which the merchandise is subject and the name of the government agency responsible for enforcing the rule, regulation, law, standard or ban. Many commenters thought the proposed requirements were too onerous and that carriers would not have access to the required information.
In response to the above concerns, CBP is eliminating or changing several proposed required data elements on the in-bond application. First, CBP is removing the requirement in proposed § 18.1(d)(1)(ii) that, if the party submitting the in-bond application knows that the merchandise is subject to a rule, regulation, law, standard or ban relating to healthy safety or conservation, the filer must provide that information to CBP along with the name of the government agency responsible for enforcing the rule, regulation, law, standard or ban. In its place, CBP is changing proposed § 18.1(d)(1)(ii) in the final rule to require that in-bond merchandise subject to the authority of a U.S. government agency be described with sufficient accuracy to enable the agency concerned to determine the contents of the shipment.
Second, CBP is removing the requirement in proposed § 18.1(d)(1)(iii) that the in-bond filer identify prohibited or restricted merchandise.
Third, CBP is removing the requirement in proposed § 18.1(d)(1)(iv) to provide information regarding textiles and textile products for all in-bond applications. This requirement will be retained in a new paragraph (d) in § 18.11 governing T&E in-bond movements. This is consistent with current regulations and should therefore provide no additional burden to parties moving merchandise in-bond.
Fourth, CBP is eliminating the requirement in proposed § 18.1(d)(1)(v) that the filer of the in-bond application “must provide” information regarding merchandise for which the U.S. Government, foreign government or other issuing authority, has issued a visa, permit, license, or other similar number or identifying information and stating instead that the filer “may provide” this information. In lieu of requiring all of the information above, CBP is changing proposed § 18.1(d)(l)(i) to require the filer to provide the six-digit HTSUS number. This is necessary to ensure that CBP knows what merchandise is being transported in-bond in light of the above changes to the required information. The six-digit HTSUS number should be available to in-bond filers because importers need this information to determine duty, cost and admissibility status prior to finalizing purchase contracts or shipment contracts. The six-digit HTSUS number is one of the required data elements for the Importer Security Filing (ISF) for all merchandise arriving by vessel.
CBP received many comments about the requirement in proposed § 18.1(d)(1)(vi) to provide “the quantity of the merchandise to be transported to the smallest piece count” in the in-bond application. Commenters found this proposal confusing and requested clarification. To address this concern, CBP is changing proposed § 18.1(d)(1)(vi) to incorporate similar language used in §§ 4.7a (inward manifest) and 123.92 (electronic information for truck cargo required in advance of arrival) regarding quantity. Specifically, CBP is changing the text in the final rule to require “the quantity of the smallest external packing unit.”
The current regulations allow an in-bond shipment to be split after the shipment reaches the port of destination with a portion of the shipment entered for consumption or warehouse while the remainder of the shipment is forwarded under a new in-bond to a different port of destination. That provision is contained in § 18.5, which governs in-bond shipments diverted from one destination port to another. Because the provisions for splitting a shipment are not limited to diverted shipments we are moving the text of this provision, currently proposed § 18.5(d), to a new paragraph (m) in § 18.1.
CBP received several comments and questions about which party would be considered the “bonded carrier” and would therefore be liable for a failure to comply with the in-bond requirements. To address these comments, CBP is adding a definition of the term “bonded carrier” in § 18.0(b). “Bonded carrier” is defined as a “carrier of merchandise whose bond under § 113.63 of this title is obligated for the transportation and delivery of merchandise.” The party that will be ultimately liable is the party whose bond is obligated in the in-bond record for the in-bond movement.
A review of the comments addressing proposed § 18.3, revealed that there is some confusion regarding the scope of the term “transshipment” and how the provision should be applied. In order to clarify the rules that apply when merchandise is transferred from one conveyance to another, CBP is replacing the term “transshipment” with the term “transfer.” Accordingly, CBP is renaming § 18.3 from “Transshipment; transfer by bonded cartmen” to “Transfers.” In the discussion that follows, the term “transfer” will be used instead of “transshipment.”
The main concern of the commenters with regard to proposed § 18.3 is with the requirement to report to CBP each time the merchandise is transferred from one conveyance to another. Because in-bond merchandise may be transferred several times during the course of its journey, it is claimed that this reporting requirement places a substantial burden on the bonded carrier liable under the bond.
CBP has reevaluated this requirement in light of the comments and has concluded that the requirement to notify CBP when in-bond merchandise is transferred from one conveyance to another is not necessary. The important information for CBP is which party has assumed liability for the shipment of the in-bond merchandise. Accordingly, CBP is changing proposed § 18.3 by removing the requirement to notify CBP
In addition, CBP is changing proposed § 18.3 to require that when in-bond merchandise is taken over by a subsequent bonded carrier which assumes liability for the merchandise, a report of arrival must be filed by the original bonded carrier and the subsequent carrier must submit a new in-bond application pursuant to § 18.1 for the merchandise to be transported in-bond.
CBP received many comments expressing concern about proposed amendments to § 18.4 governing the sealing of conveyances and containers. One of the principal concerns was that the proposed regulations do not allow for the transportation of in-bond merchandise with non-bonded merchandise in the same container, unless all of the merchandise, bonded and non-bonded, is destined for the same port. The result is that in-bond merchandise would not be able to be shipped in “less than container loads” with non-bonded merchandise.
CBP has reviewed these comments and concurs that, as proposed, the limitations on transporting in-bond merchandise with non-bonded merchandise would unnecessarily hamper the transportation of in-bond merchandise. Accordingly, CBP is changing the sealing requirements in proposed § 18.4 by adding new provisions § 18.4(b)(2) and (3) in the final rule that allow for the transportation of in-bond merchandise with non-bonded merchandise in a container or compartment that is not sealed, if the in-bond merchandise is corded and sealed, or labeled as in-bond merchandise. This will allow in-bond merchandise to be transported with non-bonded merchandise in a container that is not sealed and will facilitate the filling of containers that would otherwise be less than container load shipments.
Additionally, for clarity, the provision regarding the breaking of seals in case of an emergency or for some other reason is being moved from § 18.3 (transshipment) to § 18.4 (sealing conveyances, compartments and containers). In response to comments, CBP is removing the requirements to obtain CBP permission to break and replace a seal. However, as provided in § 163.1, the transportation or storage of merchandise carried or held under bond into or from the customs territory of the United States is an activity covered by the general recordkeeping requirements of part 163. Such activity would include the breaking and replacing of seals on merchandise transported in-bond. Therefore, records pertaining to such activity would be covered under part 163.
CBP is making additional wording changes and minor editorial changes for better organization or to improve clarity. Among other changes, CBP is no longer using the term “ultimate destination” in proposed § 18.1(d)(1)(vi) to avoid inconsistency with other export laws and regulations and is revising paragraph (vi) to clarify the destination information that is required on the in-bond application for IT shipments and T&E/IE shipments. In addition, CBP is adding a sentence to proposed § 18.1(i)(1), which sets forth the maximum in-transit time, to clarify that in-bond merchandise transported by pipeline is not subject to the time limits in that section. CBP is also revising proposed § 18.1(i)(2), which provides procedures on requesting an extension of the in-transit time, to clarify that the decision to extend the in-transit time period is within CBP's discretion and to describe some of the factors that may be considered in CBP's decision to extend the in-transit time period. For further discussion, see Section II, Discussion of Comments.
In order to provide the trade with sufficient time to adjust to the new requirements and in consideration of the business process changes that may be necessary to achieve full compliance, CBP in implementing and enforcing the rule, will take into account challenges that carriers may face in complying with the rule, so long as carriers are making satisfactory progress toward compliance and are making a good faith effort to comply with the rule to the extent of their ability. This flexible enforcement will last for 90 days after the effective date of this rule. Additionally, CBP will provide guidance on the new requirements and endeavor to conduct outreach to interested parties in order to facilitate a smooth transition to the new requirements.
Should CBP decide to adopt a final rule which does not adopt many of the suggested changes included in the comments, CBP should meet with the affected commenter prior to the finalization and publication of the rule in the
For reference purposes, the table below lists the EDI systems used for filing in-bond applications for the various modes of transportation and provides links to the Web sites that contain the relevant filing instructions or implementation guides. CBP will promptly inform the public of new CBP approved systems via CBP's Web site and regular communication systems.
A party who moves bonded merchandise without authorization, either as a non-bonded carrier holding itself out as a bonded carrier or as a non-bonded carrier using the identity/bond information of a bonded carrier without the latter's authorization, may be subject to a penalty pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1595a(b) for violation of 19 U.S.C. 1551, 19 CFR 18.1 and 19 CFR 112.12, or 19 U.S.C. 1592.
To enable ocean carriers to monitor when their IRS numbers are used to file in-bonds, CBP should modify the EDI in-bond message set for M1 to include two additional pieces of information: (1) The SCAC of the bonded party, and (2) the SCAC or filer code of the party that filed the initial in-bond application.
CBP should also develop a mechanism within ACE M1 that would allow an ocean carrier to electronically close an in-bond that the in-bond filer created in the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) using the ocean carrier's IRS number but then never closed in ABI. This would enable ocean carriers, none of whom use ABI (a broker filing system) to use ACE M1 to close in-bonds cut against the carrier's IRS number.
With regard to automation, the functionality does not currently exist to accept and approve extensions electronically via electronic EDI. Accordingly, all requests for an extension must be made to the port director of the port of destination or port of exportation, as appropriate. See § 18.1(i)(2).
Second, CBP is changing proposed § 18.4 in the final rule to make it less restrictive. CBP agrees that a responsible agent of the carrier should be able to remove and replace seals for good reason and not just in emergencies. In response to concerns that the requirement to obtain CBP permission to break and replace a seal and to update the in-bond record with the new seal information would place a significant burden on in-bond carriers and to facilitate processing of in-bond shipments, CBP is removing these requirements and allowing a responsible agent of the carrier to remove the seals and reseal the merchandise. Specifically, CBP is changing proposed § 18.4 in the final rule to provide that seals may be removed for the purpose of transferring in-bond merchandise to another conveyance, compartment or container, or to gain access to the shipment because of casualty or for other good reason, such as when required by law enforcement or another government agency.
CBP has established multi-modal electronic procedures within ABI (QP/WP) that will allow any authorized party to file an in-bond application electronically regardless of the mode of transportation. QP is used to initiate the in-bond application and WP is used to arrive/export the in-bond shipment. As of June 7, 2015, QP/WP can be used for all in-bond transactions, regardless of mode. This provides tracking of in-bond transactions between various modes and tracking history within ACE.
In view of the foregoing, and following careful consideration of the comments received and further review of the matter, CBP has concluded that the proposed regulations with the modifications discussed above should be adopted as a final rule.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review; September 30, 1993) requires Federal agencies to
Under the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (RFA/SBREFA) and EO 13272, titled “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” agencies must consider the potential impact of regulations on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations during the development of their rules. CBP is required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis and take other steps to assist small entities, unless the Agency certifies that a rule will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”
The types of entities subject to the rule's requirements include originating or bonded carriers, brokers, and other supply chain entities (
Based on FY2007 in-bond shipment data, we estimate at least 6,230 trade entities could be affected by the rule, including 5,081 non-air carriers (sea vessel, rail, and truck carriers), between 212 and 221 air carriers, and possibly at least 870 other entities (
To determine whether a substantial number of small entities would be affected by the rule, we ideally would have employment and revenue information and data for all affected entities. The SBA defines entities as “small” if they fall below certain size standards in their industry (as defined by a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code), such as the number of employees or average annual receipts.
Following the initial screening analysis, CBP published an IRFA, in accordance to Section 603 of the RFA/SBREFA, for the proposed rule on July 11, 2012.
The objective of the rule is to improve CBP's ability to regulate, track, and control in-bond cargo and to ensure that proper duties are paid or that the in-bond merchandise is exported.
Although CBP did not receive any public comments specifically addressing the IRFA or the impacts to small entities, one commenter estimated that the new data, reporting, and monitoring requirements of the proposed rule will increase costs for in-bond carriers in a number of ways. In finalizing the proposed rule, CBP took these cost estimates under advisement and has made changes to the rule to lessen the burden and costs to the public in response to various comments. See Section II.M., Potential Impact, of this document and in the complete FRFA for more information about this comment and CBP's response.
The Chief Counsel for the Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not provide any comments on the IRFA for the proposed rule.
The types of entities subject to the rule's requirements include originating or bonded carriers, brokers, and other supply chain entities (
Exhibit 1 above lists the regulatory alternatives CBP analyzed in the IRFA; including those that minimized the incremental cost burden to carriers, brokers, and agents, including small entities. CBP was not, however, able to identify any significant regulatory alternatives to the rule that specifically address small entities while also meeting the rule's objective, which is to improve CBP's ability to regulate, track, and control in-bond cargo and to ensure that proper duties are paid or that the in-bond merchandise is exported. However, in finalizing this rule, as detailed above and in the complete FRFA contained in the docket, CBP has made changes to the proposed rule, based on public comments that lower costs for entities affected by this rule, including small entities.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule is necessary for national security and is exempt from these requirements under 2 U.S.C. 1503
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L.104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3507) the collections of information for this final rule are included in an existing collection for CBP Form 7512 (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1651-0003). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.
The estimated burden hours related to CBP Form 7512 and 7512A for OMB Control number 1651-0003 are as follows:
The burden hours in this collection have been updated to reflect revised and updated estimates of filers of CBP Form 7512. These most recent data available are also used in the regulatory flexibility analysis above.
This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1) pertaining to the Secretary of the Treasury's authority (or that of his delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions.
Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Freight, Harbors, Maritime carriers, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
Caribbean Basin initiative, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Common carriers, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Freight, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Surety bonds.
Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Freight, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Warehouses, Wheat.
Common carriers, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Freight, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Common carriers, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Freight, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Security measures.
Canada, Customs duties and inspection, Freight, International boundaries, Mexico, Motor carriers, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Canada, Customs duties and inspection, Mexico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warehouses.
Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Foreign trade zones, Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Cigars and cigarettes, Cotton, Customs duties and inspection, Fruit juices, Laboratories, Metals, Oil imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sugar.
Administrative practice and procedure, Canada, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Mexico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, this document amends parts 4, 10, 18, 19, 113, 122, 123, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 151, and 181 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1431, 1433, 1434, 1624, 2071 note; 46 U.S.C. 501, 60105.
(b) The master must also present to the port director a coastwise Cargo Declaration in triplicate of the merchandise to be transported via the foreign port or ports to the subsequent ports in the United States. It must describe the merchandise and show the marks and numbers of the packages, the names of the shippers and consignees, and the destinations. The port director will certify the two copies and return them to the master. Merchandise carried by the vessel in bond under a transportation entry pursuant to part 18 of this chapter is not to be shown on the coastwise Cargo Declaration.
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1321, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1508, 1623, 1624, 3314.
(a) Withdrawals from warehouse shall be made on CBP Form 7501. Each withdrawal must contain the statement prescribed for withdrawals in § 144.32 of this chapter and all of the statistical information as provided in § 141.61(e) of this chapter. Withdrawals from
(d) Except as otherwise provided in § 10.62b, relating to withdrawals from warehouse of aircraft turbine fuel to be used within 30 days of such withdrawal as supplies on aircraft under section 309, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, when the supplies are to be laden at a port other than the port of withdrawal from warehouse, they shall be withdrawn for transportation in bond to the port of lading by filing an in-bond application pursuant to part 18 of this chapter. The procedure shall be the same as that prescribed in 144.37 of this chapter.
(f) Unless transfer is permitted under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this section, when articles are withdrawn from continuous Customs custody elsewhere than in a bonded warehouse for lading at the port of withdrawal, the procedure provided for in § 18.25 of this chapter shall be followed. Unless transfer is permitted under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this section, when articles are withdrawn from continuous Customs custody elsewhere than in a bonded warehouse for lading at another port, the procedure set forth in § 18.26 of this chapter shall be followed. There shall be such examination of the articles as may be necessary to satisfy the port director that they are subject to the privileges of section 309, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that the value and quantity declared for them are correct.
Upon the filing of the withdrawal and the execution of the bond, when required, the port director shall issue a permit on CBP Form 7501 or in-bond application.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624.
When imported merchandise, the subject of § 12.1, is shipped to another port for reconditioning or exportation, such shipment must be made in the same manner as shipments in bond in accordance with the requirements of part 18 of this chapter.
(b) Where plant or plant products are shipped from the port of first arrival to another port or place for inspection or other treatment by a representative of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs and all CBP requirements for the release of the merchandise have been met, the merchandise must be forwarded as an in-bond shipment pursuant to part 18 of this chapter to the representative of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs at the place at which the inspection or other treatment is to take place. No further release by the port director will be required.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1551, 1552, 1553, 1623, 1624; Section 18.1 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1484, 1557, 1490; Section 18.2 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1551a; Section 18.3 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1565; Section 18.4 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1322, 1323; Section 18.7 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1490, 1557; 1646a; Section 18.11 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1484; Section 18.12 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1448, 1484, 1490; Section 18.13 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1498(a); Section 18.14 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1498. Section 18.25 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1490. Section 18.26 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1490. Section 18.31 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1553a.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1) Entry for immediate transportation (IT).
(2) Warehouse withdrawal for immediate transportation.
(3) Warehouse withdrawal for immediate exportation or for transportation and exportation.
(4) Entry for transportation and exportation (T&E).
(5) Entry for immediate exportation (IE).
(6) Entry of vessel and aircraft supplies for immediate exportation (IE).
(7) Entry of vessel and aircraft supplies for transportation and exportation (T&E).
(c)
(1) The carrier, or authorized agent of the carrier, that brings the merchandise to the origination port;
(2) The carrier, or authorized agent of the carrier, that is to accept the merchandise under its bond or a carnet for transportation to the port of destination or the port of exportation; or
(3) Any person or the authorized agent of any person, who has a sufficient interest in the merchandise as shown by the bill of lading or manifest, a certificate of the importing carrier (such as a power of attorney or letter of authorization), or by any other document. CBP may request evidence to demonstrate sufficient interest.
(d)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(2)
(3)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(2)
(3)
(h)
(i)
(2)
(3)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii)
(5)
(6)
(m)
(a)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(2)
(ii) Examples of situations where CBP may waive the waiver of the sealing requirement are when the conveyance, compartment, or container cannot be effectively sealed, as in the case of merchandise shipped in open cars or barges or on the decks of vessels, when it is known that any seals would necessarily be removed outside the jurisdiction of the United States for the purpose of discharging or taking on cargo, or when it is known that the breaking of the seals will be necessary to ventilate the hatches.
(3)
(b)
(2)
(3)
This package is under bond and must be delivered intact to the CBP officer in charge at the port of destination or to such other place as authorized by CBP.
Warning. Two years' imprisonment, a fine, or both, is the penalty for unlawful removal of this package or any of its contents.
(ii)
(4)
(c)
(d)
(A) Durably marked with the name and address of the owner, particulars of tare, and identification marks and numbers, and
(B) Constructed and equipped as outlined in Annex 1 to the Customs Convention on Containers, as evidenced by an accompanying unexpired certificate of approval in the form prescribed by Annex 2 to that Convention or by a metal plate showing design type approval by a competent authority.
(ii)
(A) Durably marked with the name and address of the owner, particulars of tare, and identification marks and numbers,
(B) Constructed and equipped as outlined in Annex 6 to the TIR Convention, as evidenced by an accompanying unexpired certificate of approval in the form prescribed by Annex 8 to that Convention, or by a metal plate showing design type approval by a competent authority, and
(C) If the container or road vehicle hauling the container has affixed to it a rectangular plate bearing the letters “TIR” in accordance with Article 31 of the TIR Convention.
(2)
(i) Durably marked with the name and address of the owner, particulars of tare, and identification marks and numbers,
(ii) Constructed and equipped as outlined in Annex 3 to the TIR Convention, as evidenced by an accompanying unexpired certificate of approval in the form prescribed by Annex 5 to that Convention, or by a metal plate showing design type approval by a competent authority, and
(iii) If the road vehicle has affixed to it a rectangular plate bearing the letters “TIR” in accordance with Article 31 of the TIR Convention.
(3)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(d)
(ii) Within three months from the date demand for payment is made by the port director as provided by § 18.6(e), the guaranteeing association must pay the amount claimed, except that if the amount claimed exceeds the liability of the guaranteeing association under the carnet (see § 114.22(d) of this chapter), the carrier must pay the excess. The amount paid will be refunded if, within a period of one year from the date on which the claim for payment was made, it is established to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of CBP that no irregularity occurred. CBP may cancel liquidated damages assessed against the guaranteeing association to the extent authorized by paragraph (b) of this section.
(2)
The carrier or any of the parties named in § 18.1(c) must, in accordance with the filing requirements of § 18.1, submit a new in-bond application in order to forward or return merchandise from the port of destination or port of exportation named in the original in-bond application, or from the port of diversion, to any another port. If the merchandise is moving under cover of a carnet, the carnet may be accepted as a transportation entry.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
The baggage of any person in transit through the United States from one foreign country to another may be shipped over a bonded route for exportation. Such baggage must be shipped under the regulations prescribed in § 18.13. See § 123.64 of this chapter for the regulations applicable to baggage shipped in transit through the United States between points in Canada or Mexico.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(i) Merchandise in CBP custody for which no entry has been made or completed;
(ii) Merchandise covered by an unliquidated consumption entry; or
(iii) Merchandise that has been entered in good faith but is found to be prohibited under any law of the United States.
(2)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Port marks may be added by authority of the port director and under the supervision of a CBP officer. The original marks and the port marks must appear in all documentation or the electronic equivalent must appear in electronic records pertaining to the exportation.
(a)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(i) When the merchandise is to be transferred to one conveyance, a copy of the bill of lading or equivalent document issued by the pipeline operator to the shipper must be delivered to the person in charge of the conveyance for transmission to CBP; or
(ii) When the merchandise is to be transferred to more than one conveyance, a copy of the bill of lading or equivalent document issued by the pipeline operator to the shipper must be delivered to the person in charge of each additional conveyance, for transmission to CBP.
(2)
(3)
(e)
The provisions of §§ 18.41 through 18.45 apply only to merchandise to be exported under cover of a TIR carnet for the convenience of the U.S. exporter or other party in interest and do not apply to merchandise otherwise required to be transported in bond under the provisions of this chapter. Merchandise to be exported under cover of a TIR carnet for the convenience of the U.S. exporter or other party in interest may be transported with the use of the facilities of either bonded or non-bonded carriers.
At the port of exportation, the container or road vehicle, the merchandise, and the TIR carnet shall be made available to the port director. Any required Electronic Export Information (EEI) shall be filed in accordance with the applicable regulations of the Bureau of the Census (15 CFR part 30). The port director shall examine the merchandise to the extent he believes necessary to determine that the carnet has been properly completed and shall verify that the container or road vehicle has the necessary certificate of approval or approval plate intact and is in satisfactory condition. After completion of any required examination and supervision of loading, the port director will seal the container or road vehicle with customs seals and ascertain that the TIR plates are properly affixed and sealed. See § 18.4(d). In the case of heavy or bulky goods moving under cover of a TIR carnet, the port director shall cause a customs seal or label, as appropriate, to be affixed. He shall also remove two vouchers from the carnet, execute the appropriate counterfoils, and return the carnet to the carrier or agent to accompany the merchandise.
(a)
(b)
(c)
In the event that exportation is abandoned at any time after merchandise has been placed under cover of a TIR carnet, the carrier or agent shall deliver the carnet to the nearest CBP office or to the CBP office at the origination port for cancellation (see § 114.26(c) of this chapter). When the carnet has been canceled, the carrier or agent may remove customs seals or labels and unload the container (or heavy or bulky goods) or road vehicle without customs supervision.
The provisions of §§ 18.41 through 18.44 do not require the director of the port of actual exportation to verify that merchandise moving under cover of a TIR carnet is loaded on board the exporting carrier.
For merchandise transported in bond, which at the time of transmission of the Importer Security Filing as required by § 149.2 of this chapter is intended to be entered as an immediate exportation (IE) or transportation and exportation (T&E) shipment, permission from the port director of the origination port is needed to change the in-bond entry into a consumption entry. Such permission will only be granted upon receipt by CBP of a complete Importer Security Filing as required by part 149 of this chapter.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624.
(f) The general procedure covering warehouse withdrawals for exportation must be followed in the case of articles withdrawn for exportation from a bonded manufacturing warehouse.
(g)(1) Articles may be withdrawn for transportation and delivery to a bonded storage warehouse at an exterior port under the provisions of section 311, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1311), for the sole purpose of immediate exportation, except for distilled spirits which may be withdrawn under the provisions of § 311 for transportation and delivery to any bonded storage warehouse for the sole purpose of immediate exportation or may be withdrawn pursuant to section 309(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1309(a)). To make a withdrawal an in-bond application must be filed (see part 18 of this chapter), as provided for in § 144.36 of this chapter. A rewarehouse entry shall be made in accordance with § 144.34(b) of this chapter, supported by a bond on CBP Form 301, containing the bond conditions set forth in § 113.63 of this chapter.
19 U.S.C. 66, 1623, 1624.
(c) * * *
(1) If a bonded carrier, to report in-bond arrivals and exportations in the manner and in the time prescribed by regulation and to export in-bond merchandise in the time periods prescribed by regulation.
14. The general authority for part 122 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66, 1431, 1433, 1436, 1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 1623, 1624, 1644, 1644a, 2071 note.
(g)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(k)
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1431, 1433, 1436, 1448, 1624, 2071 note.
(b)
An in-bond application must be submitted pursuant to part 18 of this chapter upon arrival of merchandise which is to proceed under the provisions of this subpart.
(c)
(d)
(a)
(a)
19 U.S.C. 66, 1414, 1448, 1484, 1624.
(e)
19 U.S.C. 66, 1448, 1484, 1624.
(a) * * *
(1) An entry for exportation filed using an in-bond application pursuant to part 18 of this chapter, or an application to destroy the merchandise under CBP supervision is made within 10 days after the time of entry, and the exportation or destruction is accomplished promptly, or
(2) An entry for transportation and exportation, filed using an in-bond application pursuant to part 18 of this chapter, is made within 10 days after the time of entry and domestic carriage of the merchandise does not conflict with the requirements of another Federal agency.
(a) * * *
(2) An entry for exportation or for transportation and exportation filed using an in-bond application pursuant to part 18 of this chapter, or an application to destroy the merchandise, is made within the specified time limit, and the exportation or destruction is accomplished promptly.
19 U.S.C. 66, 1414, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1624, 1641.
(c)
19 U.S.C. 66, 1484, 1557, 1559, 1624.
(b) In-bond application filed pursuant to part 18 of this chapter, for merchandise to be withdrawn for transportation, exportation, or transportation and exportation.
(c)
(2) Separate withdrawals for transportation from a single warehouse, via a single conveyance, consigned to the same consignee, and deposited into a single warehouse, can be filed using one in-bond application, under one control number, provided that the information for each withdrawal, as required in paragraph (d) of this section is provided in the in-bond application for certification by CBP. With the exception of alcohol and tobacco products, this procedure will not be allowed for merchandise that is in any way restricted (for example, quota/visa).
(3) The requirement that an in-bond application be filed and the information required in paragraph (d) of this section be shown will not be required if the merchandise qualifies under the exemption in § 144.34(c).
(d)
(f)
(g) * * *
(4) Forwarded to another port or returned to the origination port in accordance with §§ 18.5(c) or 18.9 of this chapter;
(a)
(b)
(2)
19 U.S.C. 66, 81a-81u, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1623, 1624.
(a)
(b) * * *
(2) An in-bond application for merchandise to be transferred to another port or zone or for exportation must provide that the merchandise covered is foreign trade zone merchandise; give the number of the zone from which the merchandise was transferred; state the status of the merchandise; and, if applicable, bear the notation or endorsement provided for in § 146.64(c), § 146.66(b), or § 146.70(c).
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i) and (j), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624.
When merchandise covered by an immediate transportation entry has been authorized by the port director to be delivered to a place outside a port of entry as provided for in § 18.11(a) of this chapter, the provisions of § 151.7 must be complied with to the same extent as if the merchandise had been delivered to the port of entry, and then authorized to be examined elsewhere than at the public stores, wharf, or other place under the control of CBP.
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624, 3314.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum 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.
(d) The Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the
| 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 |