| Page Range | 46655-46891 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 46688 - Permitting Radar Services in the 76-81 GHz Band | |
| 82 FR 46810 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 46880 - Request for Comments Concerning an Environmental Review of the Proposed Renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement; Correction | |
| 82 FR 46831 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 46843 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 46671 - Income Taxes | |
| 82 FR 46672 - Income Taxes | |
| 82 FR 46839 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science Board | |
| 82 FR 46816 - Florida; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46812 - Florida; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46818 - Florida; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46820 - Puerto Rico; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 82 FR 46815 - Florida; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46812 - Georgia; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46821 - Georgia; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46819 - Florida; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46816 - Georgia; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46817 - Wyoming; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46820 - New Hampshire; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46813 - Seminole Tribe of Florida; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 82 FR 46818 - Seminole Tribe of Florida; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46815 - Florida; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46814 - Georgia; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46812 - Louisiana; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46818 - Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46819 - Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46819 - South Carolina; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46817 - Virgin Islands; Emergency and Related Determinations | |
| 82 FR 46813 - Virgin Islands; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 82 FR 46814 - South Carolina; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46816 - Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46814 - New Hampshire; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46815 - Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 46738 - Criteria and Process for the Cancellation of Standard Instrument Approach Procedures as Part of the National Procedures Assessment (NPA) | |
| 82 FR 46753 - Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 46790 - Notice of Waivers Granted Under Section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 | |
| 82 FR 46779 - Notice of Waivers Granted Under Section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended | |
| 82 FR 46783 - Notice of Waivers Granted Under Section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended | |
| 82 FR 46773 - Notice of Waivers Granted Under Section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended | |
| 82 FR 46799 - Notice of Waivers Granted Under Section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended | |
| 82 FR 46886 - North County Transit District's Request for Positive Train Control Safety Plan Approval and System Certification | |
| 82 FR 46691 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida Prairie-clover), and Threatened Species Status for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense (Everglades Bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida Pineland Crabgrass), and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (Pineland Sandmat) | |
| 82 FR 46796 - Notice of Waivers Granted Under Section 8401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act | |
| 82 FR 46805 - Production of Confidential Business Information in Pending Enforcement Litigation; Transfer of Information Claimed as Confidential Business Information to the United States Department of Justice and Party to Certain Litigation | |
| 82 FR 46685 - Florpyrauxifen-Benzyl; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 82 FR 46806 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Detergent Gasoline (Renewal) | |
| 82 FR 46840 - Request for Information (RFI)-Mid-Scale Research Infrastructure | |
| 82 FR 46837 - Curtis-Strauss, LLC: Grant of Expansion of Recognition and Modification of NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards | |
| 82 FR 46668 - Policy on Payment System Risk | |
| 82 FR 46773 - Notice of Availability of Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal and Reuse of the Former Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, Concord, California | |
| 82 FR 46821 - Relief From HUD Requirements Available to PHAs To Assist With Recovery and Relief Efforts on Behalf of Families Affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria and Future Natural Disasters Where Major Disaster Declarations Might Be Issued in 2017 | |
| 82 FR 46830 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Gold Bar Mine Project, Eureka County, Nevada | |
| 82 FR 46769 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting; Correction | |
| 82 FR 46771 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings; Correction | |
| 82 FR 46690 - Procedures for Commission Review of State Opt-Out Request From the FirstNet Radio Access Network | |
| 82 FR 46754 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 265-Conroe, Texas; Authorization of Production Activity; Bauer Manufacturing LLC dba NEORig; (Stationary Oil/Gas Drilling Rigs); Conroe, Texas | |
| 82 FR 46809 - Notice of Issuance of Federal Financial Accounting Technical Release 18, Implementation Guidance for Establishing Opening Balances | |
| 82 FR 46748 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 6-Month Extension of Final Determination on the Proposed Threatened Status for the Louisiana Pinesnake | |
| 82 FR 46763 - Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders | |
| 82 FR 46760 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014 | |
| 82 FR 46764 - Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 46768 - Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Turkey: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order | |
| 82 FR 46754 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 | |
| 82 FR 46767 - Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, in Part | |
| 82 FR 46832 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 82 FR 46835 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
| 82 FR 46758 - High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Determination in Less Than Fair Value Investigation, Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to Court Decision, Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order in Part, and Discontinuation of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review | |
| 82 FR 46761 - Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Brazil, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan and Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders | |
| 82 FR 46770 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 46771 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Pacific Islands Region Permit Family of Forms | |
| 82 FR 46808 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 46803 - Availability of the Bonneville Purchasing Instructions (BPI) and Bonneville Financial Assistance Instructions (BFAI) | |
| 82 FR 46804 - Klickitat Hatchery Upgrades | |
| 82 FR 46716 - Geographic-Based Hiring Preferences in Administering Federal Awards | |
| 82 FR 46772 - Board of Visitors, United States Military Academy (USMA) | |
| 82 FR 46772 - Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation Board of Visitors Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 46887 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 46672 - Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Within the Fifth Coast Guard District | |
| 82 FR 46739 - Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Request for Public Comments Regarding Standard and Routed Export Transactions | |
| 82 FR 46753 - Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 46882 - Buy America Waiver Notification | |
| 82 FR 46811 - Notice of Agreement Filed | |
| 82 FR 46828 - Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the San Antonio Water System's Micron and Water Resources Integration Program Water Pipelines; Bexar County, Texas | |
| 82 FR 46880 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway Project in Utah | |
| 82 FR 46881 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on the West Davis Corridor Project, Davis and Weber County, Utah | |
| 82 FR 46749 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Essential Fish Habitat | |
| 82 FR 46756 - Export Trade Certificate of Review | |
| 82 FR 46829 - Foreign Endangered Species Issuance of Permits | |
| 82 FR 46839 - Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 46808 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 82 FR 46831 - Stainless Steel Flanges From China and India | |
| 82 FR 46666 - Prompt Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During Operation | |
| 82 FR 46717 - Fire Protection Compensatory Measures | |
| 82 FR 46880 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 82 FR 46840 - Agreement State Program Policy Statement | |
| 82 FR 46877 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Connectivity Fees at Rule 7051 | |
| 82 FR 46844 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to ICC's Liquidity Risk Management Framework and ICC's Stress Testing Framework | |
| 82 FR 46865 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees and Charges Relating to the Listing Fees Applicable to Exchange Traded Products | |
| 82 FR 46848 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt New Corporate Governance and Related Process Similar to Those of the Nasdaq Exchanges | |
| 82 FR 46870 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) Twelve Series of Investment Company Units | |
| 82 FR 46867 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Reflect a Change to the Administrator for the London Bullion Market Association Silver Price to ICE Benchmark Administration | |
| 82 FR 46845 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Price List To Permit Affiliated Member Organizations That Are Supplemental Liquidity Providers | |
| 82 FR 46740 - Petition Requesting Rulemaking on Magnet Sets | |
| 82 FR 46811 - Depository Library Council to the Director; Meeting | |
| 82 FR 46672 - Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
| 82 FR 46879 - Scrap Metal Services Terminal Railroad Company (Indiana), LLC-Lease and Operation Exemption-Rail Line of Scrap Metal Services, LLC | |
| 82 FR 46808 - SES Performance Review Board-Appointment of Members | |
| 82 FR 46742 - Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
| 82 FR 46679 - Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
| 82 FR 46811 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 46741 - Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
| 82 FR 46890 - Departmental Offices; Interest Rate Paid on Cash Deposited To Secure U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bonds | |
| 82 FR 46674 - Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule | |
| 82 FR 46742 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program | |
| 82 FR 46681 - Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 | |
| 82 FR 46839 - Notice of Intent To Grant Partially-Exclusive Term License | |
| 82 FR 46809 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 82 FR 46883 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 82 FR 46884 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 82 FR 46885 - Petition for Approval of Informational Filing | |
| 82 FR 46885 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 82 FR 46886 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 82 FR 46810 - Notice of Termination: 10367-Summit Bank, Burlington, Washington | |
| 82 FR 46682 - Air Plan Approval; Florida; Permitting Revisions | |
| 82 FR 46722 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 46719 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 46669 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 46727 - Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Turboshaft Engines | |
| 82 FR 46725 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 46729 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 46655 - Education Programs or Activities Receiving or Benefitting From Federal Financial Assistance |
The print edition of the
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Navy Department
Bonneville Power Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule updates the regulations required for the enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (commonly referred to as “Title IX”) for financial assistance from the Department of Agriculture. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. The regulation provides guidance to recipients of Federal financial assistance who administer education programs or activities. The changes made by this rule will promote consistency in the enforcement of Title IX for USDA financial assistance recipients.
David King, telephone (202) 720-3808.
The purpose of this rule is to update the regulations in 7 CFR part 15a for the enforcement of Title IX (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683, 1685-1688) as it applies to educational programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from USDA.
On April 11, 1979, USDA published a final rule (44 FR 21610) to implement USDA's Title IX regulations, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or activities operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance.
On August 30, 2000, 20 Federal departments and agencies published a final rule (65 FR 52858) to provide for the enforcement of Title IX by participating Federal agencies that had not previously promulgated Title IX implementing regulations (referred to as the “common rule”). The Department of Justice coordinated development of the Title IX common rule, consistent with its responsibility under Executive Order 12250, to ensure the consistent and effective implementation of Title IX and other civil rights laws. USDA, as one of the Federal agencies that had already promulgated Title IX regulations, did not publish new rules to reflect the common rulemaking.
Upon further consideration, USDA decided to amend its Title IX regulations to adopt the language of the common rule. USDA's Title IX regulations have not been updated since 1979 and do not reflect intervening developments, including certain Supreme Court decisions, revisions by the Department of Education and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-259), and various Executive Orders. By harmonizing the provisions of 7 CFR part 15a with the common rule, USDA brings its regulations up-to-date, complies with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” dated February 24, 2017, follows current guidance from DOJ, and makes it easier for recipients of USDA financial assistance to understand and comply with Title IX requirements. The revisions to 7 CFR part 15a merely conform USDA's regulations to the Title IX common rule adopted by other federal agencies and reflect changes in the law since USDA published its Title IX regulations in 1979. This rule imposes no new substantive requirements on recipients of USDA financial assistance.
As shown in the following “cross-walk” table, some of the provisions of new part 15a (renumbered to correspond to the common rule) appear in different order than in the existing regulations in part 15a:
In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” established a federal policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American people. In line with the requirement repeal, replace, or modify regulations, this rule is modifying a regulation for consistency with other related federal regulations and to update the requirements.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule. Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” requires that in order to manage the private costs required to comply with Federal regulations that for every new significant or economically significant regulation issued, the new costs must be offset by the elimination of at least two prior regulations. This rule does not rise to the level required to comply with Executive Order 13771; it is also updating an existing regulation, therefore it is not a new regulation.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA, Pub. L. 104-121), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because, as noted above, it is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 and therefore, USDA is not required by any law to publish a proposed rule for public comment for this rulemaking.
Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed federal financial assistance and direct federal development. This rule neither provides federal financial assistance nor direct federal development. It does not provide either grants or cooperative agreements. Therefore, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 12372.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The rule will not have a retroactive effect.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, except as required by law. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
USDA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, USDA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where requested.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Agencies generally need to prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
SBREFA normally requires that an agency delay the effective date of a major rule for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. This rule is not a major rule under SBREFA. Therefore, USDA is not required to delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. Therefore, the rule is effective when published in the
USDA 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.
Education, Sex discrimination, Youth organizations.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688; 42 U.S.C. 7101
The purpose of this part is to effectuate Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (except sections 904 and 906 of those Amendments) (20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688), which is designed to eliminate (with certain exceptions) discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, whether or not such program or activity is offered or sponsored by an educational institution as defined in this part.
As used in this part, the term:
(1) A grant or loan of Federal financial assistance, including funds made available for:
(i) The acquisition, construction, renovation, restoration, or repair of a building or facility or any portion thereof; and
(ii) Scholarships, loans, grants, wages, or other funds extended to any entity for payment to or on behalf of students admitted to that entity, or extended directly to such students for payment to that entity.
(2) A grant of Federal real or personal property or any interest therein, including surplus property, and the proceeds of the sale or transfer of such property, if the Federal share of the fair market value of the property is not, upon such sale or transfer, properly accounted for to the Federal Government.
(3) Provision of the services of Federal personnel.
(4) Sale or lease of Federal property or any interest therein at nominal consideration, or at consideration reduced for the purpose of assisting the recipient or in recognition of public interest to be served thereby, or permission to use Federal property or any interest therein without consideration.
(5) Any other contract, agreement, or arrangement that has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance to any education program or activity, except a contract of insurance or guaranty.
(1) Offers academic study beyond the bachelor of arts or bachelor of science degree, whether or not leading to a certificate of any higher degree in the liberal arts and sciences;
(2) Awards any degree in a professional field beyond the first professional degree (regardless of whether the first professional degree in such field is awarded by an institution of undergraduate higher education or professional education); or
(3) Awards no degree and offers no further academic study, but operates ordinarily for the purpose of facilitating research by persons who have received the highest graduate degree in any field of study.
(1) An institution offering at least two but less than four years of college level study beyond the high school level, leading to a diploma or an associate degree, or wholly or principally creditable toward a baccalaureate degree; or
(2) An institution offering academic study leading to a baccalaureate degree; or
(3) An agency or body that certifies credentials or offers degrees, but that may or may not offer academic study.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Evaluate, in terms of the requirements of this part, its current policies and practices and the effects thereof concerning admission of students, treatment of students, and employment of both academic and nonacademic personnel working in connection with the recipient's education program or activity;
(2) Modify any of these policies and practices that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part; and
(3) Take appropriate remedial steps to eliminate the effects of any discrimination that resulted or may have resulted from adherence to these policies and practices.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(2) In the case of Federal financial assistance extended to provide personal property, such assurance shall obligate the recipient for the period during which it retains ownership or possession of the property.
(3) In all other cases such assurance shall obligate the recipient for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended.
(c)
(2) The designated agency official will specify the extent to which such assurances will be required of the applicant's or recipient's subgrantees, contractors, subcontractors, transferees, or successors in interest.
If a recipient sells or otherwise transfers property financed in whole or in part with Federal financial assistance to a transferee that operates any education program or activity, and the Federal share of the fair market value of
(a)
(b)
(c)
The obligation to comply with this part is not obviated or alleviated because employment opportunities in any occupation or profession are or may be more limited for members of one sex than for members of the other sex.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(2) Each recipient shall make the initial notification required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section within 90 days of the date this part first applies to such recipient, which notification shall include publication in:
(i) Newspapers and magazines operated by such recipient or by student, alumnae, or alumni groups for or in connection with such recipient; and
(ii) Memoranda or other written communications distributed to every student and employee of such recipient.
(b)
(2) A recipient shall not use or distribute a publication of the type described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that suggests, by text or illustration, that such recipient treats applicants, students, or employees differently on the basis of sex except as such treatment is permitted by this part.
(c)
Except as provided in §§ 15a.205 through 15a.235(a), this part applies to every recipient and to each education program or activity operated by such recipient that receives Federal financial assistance.
(a)
(b)
This part does not apply to an educational institution whose primary purpose is the training of individuals for a military service of the United States or for the merchant marine.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a) Admissions to educational institutions prior to June 24, 1973, are not covered by this part.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(1) Admitted students of only one sex as regular students as of June 23, 1972; or
(2) Admitted students of only one sex as regular students as of June 23, 1965, but thereafter admitted, as regular students, students of the sex not admitted prior to June 23, 1965.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1) State the name, address, and Federal Interagency Committee on Education Code of the educational institution submitting such plan, the administratively separate units to which the plan is applicable, and the name, address, and telephone number of the person to whom questions concerning the plan may be addressed. The person who submits the plan shall be the chief administrator or president of the institution, or another individual legally authorized to bind the institution to all actions set forth in the plan.
(2) State whether the educational institution or administratively separate unit admits students of both sexes as regular students and, if so, when it began to do so.
(3) Identify and describe with respect to the educational institution or administratively separate unit any obstacles to admitting students without discrimination on the basis of sex.
(4) Describe in detail the steps necessary to eliminate as soon as practicable each obstacle so identified and indicate the schedule for taking these steps and the individual directly responsible for their implementation.
(5) Include estimates of the number of students, by sex, expected to apply for, be admitted to, and enter each class during the period covered by the plan.
(c)
(d)
(a) This section, which applies to all provisions of this part, addresses statutory amendments to Title IX.
(b) This part shall not apply to or preclude:
(1) Any program or activity of the American Legion undertaken in connection with the organization or operation of any Boys State conference, Boys Nation conference, Girls State conference, or Girls Nation conference;
(2) Any program or activity of a secondary school or educational institution specifically for:
(i) The promotion of any Boys State conference, Boys Nation conference, Girls State conference, or Girls Nation conference; or
(ii) The selection of students to attend any such conference;
(3) Father-son or mother-daughter activities at an educational institution or in an education program or activity, but if such activities are provided for students of one sex, opportunities for reasonably comparable activities shall be provided to students of the other sex;
(4) Any scholarship or other financial assistance awarded by an institution of higher education to an individual because such individual has received such award in a single-sex pageant based upon a combination of factors related to the individual's personal appearance, poise, and talent. The pageant, however, must comply with other nondiscrimination provisions of Federal law.
(c)
(1) All of the operations of any entity described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section, any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance:
(i)(A) A department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or
(B) The entity of such State or local government that distributes such
(ii)(A) A college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education; or
(B) A local educational agency (as defined in section 8801 of title 20), system of vocational education, or other school system;
(iii)(A) An entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or an entire sole proprietorship—
(
(
(B) The entire plant or other comparable, geographically separate facility to which Federal financial assistance is extended, in the case of any other corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship; or
(iv) Any other entity that is established by two or more of the entities described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.
(2)(i)
(ii) For example, all of the operations of a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, including but not limited to traditional educational operations, faculty and student housing, campus shuttle bus service, campus restaurants, the bookstore, and other commercial activities are part of a “program or activity” subject to this part if the college, university, or other institution receives Federal financial assistance.
(d)(1) Nothing in this part shall be construed to require or prohibit any person, or public or private entity, to provide or pay for any benefit or service, including the use of facilities, related to an abortion. Medical procedures, benefits, services, and the use of facilities, necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman or to address complications related to an abortion are not subject to this section.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a penalty to be imposed on any person or individual because such person or individual is seeking or has received any benefit or service related to a legal abortion. Accordingly, subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, no person shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any academic, extracurricular, research, occupational training, employment, or other educational program or activity operated by a recipient that receives Federal financial assistance because such individual has sought or received, or is seeking, a legal abortion, or any benefit or service related to a legal abortion.
(a)
(b)
(i) Give preference to one person over another on the basis of sex, by ranking applicants separately on such basis, or otherwise;
(ii) Apply numerical limitations upon the number or proportion of persons of either sex who may be admitted; or
(iii) Otherwise treat one individual differently from another on the basis of sex.
(2) A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for admission that has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless the use of such test or criterion is shown to predict validly success in the education program or activity in question and alternative tests or criteria that do not have such a disproportionately adverse effect are shown to be unavailable.
(c)
(1) Shall not apply any rule concerning the actual or potential parental, family, or marital status of a student or applicant that treats persons differently on the basis of sex;
(2) Shall not discriminate against or exclude any person on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, or establish or follow any rule or practice that so discriminates or excludes;
(3) Subject to § 15a.235(d), shall treat disabilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom in the same manner and under the same policies as any other temporary disability or physical condition; and
(4) Shall not make pre-admission inquiry as to the marital status of an applicant for admission, including whether such applicant is “Miss” or “Mrs.” A recipient may make pre-admission inquiry as to the sex of an applicant for admission, but only if such inquiry is made equally of such applicants of both sexes and if the results of such inquiry are not used in connection with discrimination prohibited by this part.
A recipient to which §§ 15a.300 through 15a.310 apply shall not give preference to applicants for admission, on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or other school or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preference has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of §§ 15a.300 through 15a.310.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1) Treat one person differently from another in determining whether such person satisfies any requirement or condition for the provision of such aid, benefit, or service;
(2) Provide different aid, benefits, or services or provide aid, benefits, or services in a different manner;
(3) Deny any person any such aid, benefit, or service;
(4) Subject any person to separate or different rules of behavior, sanctions, or other treatment;
(5) Apply any rule concerning the domicile or residence of a student or applicant, including eligibility for instate fees and tuition;
(6) Aid or perpetuate discrimination against any person by providing significant assistance to any agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of sex in providing any aid, benefit, or service to students or employees;
(7) Otherwise limit any person in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity.
(c)
(d)
(2) Such recipient:
(i) Shall develop and implement a procedure designed to assure itself that the operator or sponsor of such other education program or activity takes no action affecting any applicant, student, or employee of such recipient that this part would prohibit such recipient from taking; and
(ii) Shall not facilitate, require, permit, or consider such participation if such action occurs.
(a)
(b)
(2) Housing provided by a recipient to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, shall be as a whole:
(i) Proportionate in quantity to the number of students of that sex applying for such housing; and
(ii) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
(c)
(2)(i) A recipient which, through solicitation, listing, approval of housing, or otherwise, assists any agency, organization, or person in making housing available to any of its students, shall take such reasonable action as may be necessary to assure itself that such housing as is provided to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, is as a whole:
(A) Proportionate in quantity; and
(B) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
(ii) A recipient may render such assistance to any agency, organization, or person that provides all or part of such housing to students of only one sex.
A recipient may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.
(a) A recipient shall not provide any course or otherwise carry out any of its education program or activity separately on the basis of sex, or require or refuse participation therein by any of its students on such basis, including health, physical education, industrial, business, vocational, technical, home economics, music, and adult education courses.
(b)(1) With respect to classes and activities in physical education at the elementary school level, the recipient shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than one year from the effective date of these regulations. With respect to physical education classes and activities at the secondary and post-secondary levels, the recipient shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than three years from the effective date of these regulations.
(2) This section does not prohibit grouping of students in physical education classes and activities by ability as assessed by objective standards of individual performance developed and applied without regard to sex.
(3) This section does not prohibit separation of students by sex within physical education classes or activities during participation in wrestling, boxing, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball, and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.
(4) Where use of a single standard of measuring skill or progress in a physical education class has an adverse effect on members of one sex, the recipient shall use appropriate standards that do not have such effect.
(5) Portions of classes in elementary and secondary schools, or portions of education programs or activities, that deal exclusively with human sexuality
(6) Recipients may make requirements based on vocal range or quality that may result in a chorus or choruses of one or predominantly one sex.
A recipient that is a local educational agency shall not, on the basis of sex, exclude any person from admission to:
(a) Any institution of vocational education operated by such recipient; or
(b) Any other school or educational unit operated by such recipient, unless such recipient otherwise makes available to such person, pursuant to the same policies and criteria of admission, courses, services, and facilities comparable to each course, service, and facility offered in or through such schools.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(1) On the basis of sex, provide different amounts or types of such assistance, limit eligibility for such assistance that is of any particular type or source, apply different criteria, or otherwise discriminate;
(2) Through solicitation, listing, approval, provision of facilities, or other services, assist any foundation, trust, agency, organization, or person that provides assistance to any of such recipient's students in a manner that discriminates on the basis of sex; or
(3) Apply any rule or assist in application of any rule concerning eligibility for such assistance that treats persons of one sex differently from persons of the other sex with regard to marital or parental status.
(b)
(2) To ensure nondiscriminatory awards of assistance as required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, recipients shall develop and use procedures under which:
(i) Students are selected for award of financial assistance on the basis of nondiscriminatory criteria and not on the basis of availability of funds restricted to members of a particular sex;
(ii) An appropriate sex-restricted scholarship, fellowship, or other form of financial assistance is allocated to each student selected under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section; and
(iii) No student is denied the award for which he or she was selected under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section because of the absence of a scholarship, fellowship, or other form of financial assistance designated for a member of that student's sex.
(c)
(2) A recipient may provide separate athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid for members of each sex as part of separate athletic teams for members of each sex to the extent consistent with this paragraph (c) and § 15a.450.
(a)
(1) Shall assure itself that such employment is made available without discrimination on the basis of sex; and
(2) Shall not render such services to any agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of sex in its employment practices.
(b)
Subject to § 15a.235(d), in providing a medical, hospital, accident, or life insurance benefit, service, policy, or plan to any of its students, a recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of sex, or provide such benefit, service, policy, or plan in a manner that would violate §§ 15a.500 through 15a.550 if it were provided to employees of the recipient. This section shall not prohibit a recipient from providing any benefit or service that may be used by a different proportion of students of one sex than of the other, including family planning services. However, any recipient that provides full coverage health service shall provide gynecological care.
(a)
(b)
(2) A recipient may require such a student to obtain the certification of a
(3) A recipient that operates a portion of its education program or activity separately for pregnant students, admittance to which is completely voluntary on the part of the student as provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, shall ensure that the separate portion is comparable to that offered to non-pregnant students.
(4) Subject to § 15a.235(d), a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy and recovery therefrom in the same manner and under the same policies as any other temporary disability with respect to any medical or hospital benefit, service, plan, or policy that such recipient administers, operates, offers, or participates in with respect to students admitted to the recipient's educational program or activity.
(5) In the case of a recipient that does not maintain a leave policy for its students, or in the case of a student who does not otherwise qualify for leave under such a policy, a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, and recovery therefrom as a justification for a leave of absence for as long a period of time as is deemed medically necessary by the student's physician, at the conclusion of which the student shall be reinstated to the status that she held when the leave began.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
(ii) The provision of equipment and supplies;
(iii) Scheduling of games and practice time;
(iv) Travel and per diem allowance;
(v) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;
(vi) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
(vii) Provision of locker rooms, practice, and competitive facilities;
(viii) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
(ix) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
(x) Publicity.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the designated agency official may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.
(d)
Nothing in this part shall be interpreted as requiring or prohibiting or abridging in any way the use of particular textbooks or curricular materials.
(a)
(2) A recipient shall make all employment decisions in any education program or activity operated by such recipient in a nondiscriminatory manner and shall not limit, segregate, or classify applicants or employees in any way that could adversely affect any applicant's or employee's employment opportunities or status because of sex.
(3) A recipient shall not enter into any contractual or other relationship which directly or indirectly has the effect of subjecting employees or students to discrimination prohibited by §§ 15a.500 through 15a.550, including relationships with employment and referral agencies, with labor unions, and with organizations providing or administering fringe benefits to employees of the recipient.
(4) A recipient shall not grant preferences to applicants for employment on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preferences has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of this part.
(b)
(1) Recruitment, advertising, and the process of application for employment;
(2) Hiring, upgrading, promotion, consideration for and award of tenure, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination, application of nepotism policies, right of return from layoff, and rehiring;
(3) Rates of pay or any other form of compensation, and changes in compensation;
(4) Job assignments, classifications, and structure, including position descriptions, lines of progression, and seniority lists;
(5) The terms of any collective bargaining agreement;
(6) Granting and return from leaves of absence, leave for pregnancy, childbirth,
(7) Fringe benefits available by virtue of employment, whether or not administered by the recipient;
(8) Selection and financial support for training, including apprenticeship, professional meetings, conferences, and other related activities, selection for tuition assistance, selection for sabbaticals and leaves of absence to pursue training;
(9) Employer-sponsored activities, including social or recreational programs; and
(10) Any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.
A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for any employment opportunity that has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless:
(a) Use of such test or other criterion is shown to predict validly successful performance in the position in question; and
(b) Alternative tests or criteria for such purpose, which do not have such disproportionately adverse effect, are shown to be unavailable.
(a)
(b)
A recipient shall not make or enforce any policy or practice that, on the basis of sex:
(a) Makes distinctions in rates of pay or other compensation;
(b) Results in the payment of wages to employees of one sex at a rate less than that paid to employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions.
A recipient shall not:
(a) Classify a job as being for males or for females;
(b) Maintain or establish separate lines of progression, seniority lists, career ladders, or tenure systems based on sex; or
(c) Maintain or establish separate lines of progression, seniority systems, career ladders, or tenure systems for similar jobs, position descriptions, or job requirements that classify persons on the basis of sex, unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the positions in question as set forth in § 15a.550.
(a)
(b)
(1) Discriminate on the basis of sex with regard to making fringe benefits available to employees or make fringe benefits available to spouses, families, or dependents of employees differently upon the basis of the employee's sex;
(2) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a fringe benefit plan that does not provide for equal periodic benefits for members of each sex and for equal contributions to the plan by such recipient for members of each sex; or
(3) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a pension or retirement plan that establishes different optional or compulsory retirement ages based on sex or that otherwise discriminates in benefits on the basis of sex.
(a)
(1) Concerning the potential marital, parental, or family status of an employee or applicant for employment that treats persons differently on the basis of sex; or
(2) Which is based upon whether an employee or applicant for employment is the head of household or principal wage earner in such employee's or applicant's family unit.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
A recipient shall not in any advertising related to employment indicate preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on sex unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the particular job in question.
(a)
(b)
A recipient may take action otherwise prohibited by §§ 15a.500 through 15a.550 provided it is shown that sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for that action, such that consideration of sex with regard to such action is essential to successful operation of the employment function concerned. A recipient shall not take action pursuant to this section that is based upon alleged comparative employment characteristics or stereotyped characterizations of one or the other sex, or upon preference based on sex of the recipient, employees, students, or other persons, but nothing contained in this section shall prevent a recipient from considering an employee's sex in relation to employment in a locker room or toilet facility used only by members of one sex.
The procedural provisions applicable to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) are hereby adopted and applied to this part. These procedures may be found at 7 CFR 15.5-15.11 and 15.60-15.143.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Discontinuation of rulemaking activity.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is discontinuing a rulemaking activity that would have required licensees to remediate residual radioactivity resulting from licensed activities during facility operations, rather than at license termination. The purpose of this action is to inform members of the public that this rulemaking activity is being discontinued and to provide a brief discussion of the NRC's decision to discontinue it. This rulemaking activity will no longer be reported in the NRC's portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (the Unified Agenda).
This action is effective October 6, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0162 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Robert D. MacDougall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5175; email:
This action is the culmination of a process of evaluating operating experience and interacting with the public since 2007 to determine whether the NRC should require licensees to remediate, during facility operations, releases of residual radioactivity into the surface and subsurface of their facility sites. Such remediation during operations has come to be known as “prompt” remediation. In order to permit a site to be released for unrestricted use, licensees are currently required to remediate, before license termination, all residual radioactivity at their facility sites to levels that provide reasonable assurance that no member of the public will receive a dose from the decommissioned facility greater than 25 millirem (mrem) per year.
As a result of its evaluations and stakeholder interactions, the NRC staff recommended, and the Commission decided, to discontinue further work on a prompt remediation rulemaking. A discussion of this decision is provided in Section II of this document.
The Commission first directed the staff to study the potential need for a prompt remediation rulemaking when the Commission approved the proposed decommissioning planning rule (DPR) in 2007. In its staff requirements memorandum (SRM) on that proposed rule (ADAMS Accession No. ML073440549), the Commission directed the staff to “make further improvements to the decommissioning planning process by addressing the remediation of residual radioactivity during the operational phase with the objective of avoiding complex decommissioning challenges that can lead to legacy sites.” In its subsequent
Such a site could not be released for unrestricted use when the license is terminated, and would therefore require an institution, usually a government agency, to maintain and restrict access to the site to keep doses to members of the public below the individual site-specific limit approved by the NRC.
Under § 20.1402 of title 10 of the
The final DPR, published on June 17, 2011 (76 FR 35512), retained that objective, and took effect on December 17, 2012. The DPR requires licensees to conduct their operations to minimize the introduction of residual radioactivity into the site, which includes the site's subsurface soil and groundwater. Licensees may also be required to perform site surveys to determine whether residual radioactivity is present in subsurface areas, and to keep records of these surveys with records important for decommissioning. Among other things, the rule requires licensees to report additional details in their decommissioning cost estimates (76 FR 35512; June 17, 2011).
The DPR does not, however, mandate that licensees remediate during operations. In response to a comment on the lack of such a requirement, the Commission noted in its FRN for the final rule that it “allows a licensee who detects subsurface contamination either to conduct immediate remediation or to plan for and provide funds in the form of financial assurance to conduct remediation at a later time, including at the time of decommissioning. Thus, this final rule creates a potential incentive for immediate remediation instead of an increased financial assurance obligation” (76 FR 35532; June 17, 2011).
In parallel with the development of the final DPR, and in accordance with the Commission's 2007 directive to consider a prompt remediation requirement, the NRC staff developed a draft regulatory basis for a proposed rule to address prompt remediation (ADAMS Accession No. ML111580353). An FRN published on July 18, 2011 (76 FR 42074), announced the NRC's “Consideration of Rulemaking To Address Prompt Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During Operations.”
The NRC staff held a public meeting and webinar on July 25, 2011, to discuss prompt remediation, and obtained and evaluated additional stakeholder comments for a revised draft regulatory basis for potential rulemaking (ADAMS Accession No. ML120190685). Subsequently, in SRM-SECY-12-0046, “Options for Revising the Regulatory Approach to Groundwater Protection” (ADAMS Accession No. ML121450704), the Commission directed the staff on May 24, 2012, to seek additional stakeholder comments on the draft regulatory basis for a proposed prompt remediation rule. The Commission also directed the staff to evaluate the pros and cons of moving forward with a proposed prompt remediation rulemaking.
The NRC staff held a public meeting and webinar on June 4, 2013, to obtain stakeholder comments on the ongoing prompt remediation issue. The staff then evaluated those comments and included the results in SECY-13-0108, “Staff Recommendations for Addressing Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During Operations” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13217A230). In SRM-SECY-13-0108 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13354B759), the Commission on December 20, 2013, approved the NRC staff's recommendation to collect 2 years of additional data on the implementation of the DPR. The Commission also directed that the staff, after collecting and evaluating the data and holding a public meeting with stakeholders, provide the Commission a paper “with the staff's recommendation for addressing remediation of residual radioactivity at licensed facilities during the operational phase of the facility.”
To evaluate the need for and potential benefits of additional rulemaking on prompt remediation, the NRC staff analyzed whether the manner of licensee compliance with the DPR has been adequate to prevent future legacy sites (see SECY-16-0121, “Staff Recommendations For Rulemaking To Address Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During Operation,” October 16, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16235A298)). The staff evaluated: (1) NRC inspection results; (2) licensee event reports and radiological effluent monitoring reports; (3) the financial assurance mechanisms available to support decommissioning at different types of facilities; (4) the results of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 07-07, “Industry Groundwater Protection Initiative” (ADAMS Accession No. ML072610036) and associated groundwater contamination evaluations; (5) guidance promulgated by the NRC and industry groups such as NEI and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); and (6) stakeholder feedback from a July 11, 2016, public webinar and other forums.
Based on these information sources, the NRC staff concluded in SECY-16-0121 that:
• Existing dose limits codified in the NRC's regulations provide adequate protection of public health and safety during operation, and an additional rule requiring prompt remediation would provide limited additional benefit.
• The current DPR requires early identification of residual radioactivity that, if allowed to spread, could prevent a site from being released for unrestricted use at license termination. The DPR also requires timely adjustments to decommissioning financial instruments to ensure that adequate funding will be available after facility shutdown to remediate any such residual radioactivity to comply with the criteria for license termination in 10 CFR part 20, appendix E. These requirements mitigate the potential that residual contamination unaccounted for in a licensee's funding for decommissioning would lead to a future legacy site.
• In some circumstances, mandated remediation during operation could adversely affect operational safety, as certain locations may be safely accessible only after operations have ceased or when operating conditions permit. This would be the case, for example, if residual radioactivity were suspected underneath a building within which a licensee was using or storing radioactive materials.
• Groundwater resources are protected from abnormal releases by effective groundwater monitoring programs, as well as industry initiatives where appropriate, to identify significant residual radioactivity early in the operating life of the facility. Examples of such initiatives are the NEI 07-07 effort and supporting EPRI guidance for evaluating potential groundwater contamination.
• Licensees are effectively complying with the DPR. The current regulations are sufficient to ensure that when a facility ceases operation, site characterization will have resulted in the appropriate identification of all significant residual subsurface radioactivity, and adequate financial resources will be available to complete decommissioning for release of the site
The staff also found in SECY-16-0121 that residual radioactivity detected to date has been limited mostly to onsite areas, and there has not been a significant impact on public health and safety. Under current regulations, this is unlikely to change. In addition to complying with applicable dose standards, for example, licensees also must comply with the requirement in 10 CFR 20.1101(b) to “use, to the extent practical, procedures and engineering controls . . . to achieve . . . doses to members of the public as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).” By requiring public doses to be ALARA, existing NRC regulations provide ample assurance that the need for a prompt remediation rule is unlikely to grow with time.
Based on these considerations, earlier assessments, and its conclusions from the 2 additional years of operating experience, the NRC staff in SECY-16-0121 recommended that further work on a prompt remediation rule be discontinued. On December 21, 2016, in SRM-SECY-16-0121 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16356A583), the Commission accepted the staff's recommendation.
From the staff's evaluation of how licensees are complying with the DPR and other NRC regulations limiting doses to members of the public, the Commission has determined that licensees are operating their facilities to minimize leaks and spills, monitor for residual radioactivity, adjust decommissioning funding to account for residual surface and subsurface radioactivity, and maintain doses to the public within regulatory limits, including ALARA requirements. Compliance with these regulations protects public health and safety and significantly reduces the potential for additional legacy sites.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC is no longer pursuing revisions to its regulations in 10 CFR part 20 for the reasons discussed in this document. In the next edition of the Unified Agenda, the NRC will update the entry for this rulemaking activity and reference this document to indicate that it is no longer being pursued. This rulemaking activity will appear in the “Completed Actions” section of that edition of the Unified Agenda, but will not appear in future editions. If the NRC decides to pursue similar or related rulemaking activities in the future, it will inform the public through a new rulemaking entry in the Unified Agenda.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Policy statement.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) has revised part II of the Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk (PSR policy) related to the transaction posting times used for measuring balances intraday in institutions' accounts at the Federal Reserve Banks (Reserve Banks) to conform to amendments to regulations governing the use of the Automated Clearing House (ACH) Network by Federal agencies announced by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service). Specifically, the amended posting rules conform to the decision of the Fiscal Service to allow Federal agencies to originate and receive same-day entries beginning September 15, 2017.
This policy revision is applicable beginning on September 15, 2017.
Jeffrey D. Walker, Assistant Director (202-721-4559), Jason Hinkle, Manager, Financial Risk Management (202-912-7805), or Ian C.B. Spear, Senior Financial Services Analyst (202-452-3959), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems; for users of Telecommunication Devices for
The Board's PSR policy establishes the procedures for measuring balances intraday in institutions' accounts at the Reserve Banks by setting forth the times at which credits and debits for various types of transactions are posted to those accounts (“the posting rules”).
On September 23, 2015, the Board approved enhancements to the Reserve Banks' FedACH® SameDay Service (FedACH SameDay Service) in light of amendments to NACHA—The Electronic Payments Association's Operating Rules and Guidelines.
The Board is revising the PSR policy's posting rules for same-day ACH transactions to conform to amendments to 31 CFR part 210 (part 210) announced on September 11, 2017 by Fiscal Service.
The Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk, section II.A, under the heading “Procedures for Measuring Daylight Overdrafts” and the subheadings “Post at 8:30 a.m. eastern time,” “Post by 1:00 p.m. eastern time,” “Post at 5:00 p.m. eastern time,” and “Post at 5:30 p.m. eastern time,” is amended as follows:
Institutions that are monitored in real time must fund the total amount of their commercial ACH credit originations in order for the transactions to be processed. If the Federal Reserve receives commercial ACH credit transactions from institutions monitored in real time after the scheduled close of the Fedwire Funds Service, these transactions will be processed at 12:30 a.m. the next business day, or by the ACH deposit deadline, whichever is earlier. The Account Balance Monitoring System provides intraday account information to the Reserve Banks and institutions and is used primarily to give authorized Reserve Bank personnel a mechanism to control and monitor account activity for selected institutions. For more information on ACH transaction processing, refer to the ACH Settlement Day Finality Guide available through the Federal Reserve Financial Services Web site at
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Director of the Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems under delegated authority, October 3, 2017.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all General Electric Company (GE) CF34-8E model turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by a report that using a certain repair procedure for the fan outlet guide vane (OGV) frame could alter the strength capability of the fan OGV frame. This AD requires replacement of all fan OGV frames
This AD is effective November 13, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
David Bethka, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7129; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all GE CF34-8E model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
The Air Line Pilots Association supports the NPRM.
Horizon Air requested we include a list of fan OGV frame affected serial numbers (S/Ns) in this AD. J-Air requested that this AD include GE Service Bulletin (SB) CF34-8E-AL S/B 72-0183, Revision 3, dated March 7, 2017, for a list of affected OGV frame S/Ns known to GE. Further, the two commenters explained that operators are not necessarily aware of which repairs have been performed. The changes were requested to take the burden off the operator to determine AD applicability.
We partially agree. We disagree that SB CF34-8E-AL S/B 72-0183 provides a list of all affected OGV frame S/Ns. The list of known affected part S/Ns is based on the best available data, but is not comprehensive. It may be possible that some OGV frames were repaired, but are not known to GE and are not included in GE SB CF34-8E-AL S/B 72-0183. Operators are responsible for checking engine records to determine AD applicability.
We agree to unburden operators to the maximum extent possible. In the interest of aiding operators to determine affected part S/Ns, we included GE SB CF34-8E-AL S/B 72-0183 in the Related Service Information section in the preamble of this final rule, with a note that GE SB CF34-8E-AL S/B 72-0183 does not include a comprehensive list of all affected parts. GE SB CF34-8E-AL S/B 72-0183 includes a list of OGV frame S/Ns known to GE that have been repaired to GEK 112031 72-00-23, REPAIR 006.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the change described previously. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed GE CF34-8E Engine Manual, GEK 112031, 72-00-23, REPAIR 006. The repair describes procedures for applying a dry-film lubricant to the fan OGV frame with heat curing.
We also reviewed GE SB CF34-8E-AL S/B 72-0183, Revision 3, dated March 7, 2017. The SB provides instructions to replace the fan OGV frames repaired as specified in GE CF34-8E Engine Manual, GEK 112031, 72-00-23, REPAIR 006. However, the SB does not provide a comprehensive list of affected parts. The SB provides a list of OGV frame S/Ns known to GE that have been repaired to GEK 112031 72-00-23 REPAIR 006.
We estimate that this AD affects 42 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
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
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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective November 13, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) CF34-8E2; CF34-8E2A1; CF34-8E5; CF34-8E5A1; CF34-8E5A2; CF34-8E6; and CF34-8E6A1 model turbofan engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC), 7270, Turbine Engine Bypass Section.
This AD was prompted by a report that using a certain repair procedure for the fan outlet guide vane (OGV) frame could alter the strength capability of the fan OGV frame. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fan OGV frame, engine separation, and loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For engines with a fan OGV frame installed that was repaired using GE CF34-8E Engine Manual, GEK 112031, 72-00-23, REPAIR 006:
(i) If the fan OGV frame has 24,900 cycles since new (CSN) or more on the effective date of this AD, remove the OGV frame from service within 100 cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(ii) If the OGV frame has less than 24,900 CSN on the effective date of this AD, remove the fan OGV frame from service at the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD, or before exceeding 25,000 CSN, whichever occurs earlier.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a fan OGV frame that was repaired using GE CF34-8E Engine Manual, GEK 112031, 72-00-23, REPAIR 006.
For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges.
(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 certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(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 David Bethka, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7129; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) For General Electric service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
None.
In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26, §§ 1.401 to 1.409, revised as of April 1, 2017, on page 235, in § 1.401(a)(9)-6, at the end of paragraph (d)(3)(i), insert the words “as of the date of purchase”.
In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, § 1.1551 to end of part 1, revised as of April 1, 2017, on page 331, in § 1.6045-4, in paragraph (m), after the designation (1), the designation (i) is added.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the Swim the Loop and Motts Channel Sprint on October 7, 2017, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Wrightsville Beach, NC. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 will be enforced for the Swim the Loop and Motts Channel Sprint regulated area listed in item d.1 in the Table to § 100.501 from 9:30 a.m. to noon on October 7, 2017.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, contact Petty Officer Matthew Tyson, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, Wilmington, NC; telephone: 910-772-2221, email:
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 for the Swim the Loop and Motts Channel Sprint regulated area from 9:30 a.m. to noon on October 7, 2017. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Swim the Loop and Motts Channel Sprint which encompasses portions of Motts Channel, Banks Channel, Lee's Cut, and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 100.100(c), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of § 100.100(f) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from the State of Missouri for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO
This direct final rule will be effective December 5, 2017, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 6, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0515, to
Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA is approving the revision as meeting the submittal requirement of section 110(a)(1). EPA is approving elements of the infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri received on July 08, 2013. EPA is approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prevention of significant deterioration of
A Technical Support Document (TSD) is included as part of the docket to discuss the details of this action, including analysis of how the SIP meets the applicable 110 requirements for infrastructure SIPs.
The state's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state held a public comment period from The MDNR held a public hearing and comment period from April 30, 2013, to June 6, 2013. EPA provided comments on May 23, 2013 and were the only commenters. A public hearing was held on May 30, 2013. The submission satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V for all elements except 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2. As explained in more detail in the TSD, which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
EPA is approving elements of the July 8, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 SO
EPA is not acting on the elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), interfering with maintenance of the NAAQs (prong 2) because those elements were not addressed in the SIP revision submittal.
EPA is not taking action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(I) as the agency does not expect infrastructure SIP revisions to address the element. Section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as nonattainment areas, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of the CAA, relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment areas. EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address element (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of the October 26, 2015, and May 19, 2017, State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from Alabama replacing the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) federal implementation plan (FIP). Under CSAPR, large electricity generating units (EGUs) in Alabama are subject to FIP provisions requiring the units to participate in a federal allowance trading program for ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
This rule will be effective November 6, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0415. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Ashten Bailey, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bailey can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9164 or via electronic mail at
EPA issued CSAPR
CSAPR includes provisions under which states may submit and EPA will approve SIP revisions to modify or replace the CSAPR FIP requirements while allowing states to continue to meet their transport-related obligations using either CSAPR's federal emissions trading programs or state emissions trading programs integrated with the federal programs, provided that the SIP revisions meet all relevant criteria.
States can submit two basic forms of CSAPR-related SIP revisions effective for emissions control periods in 2017 or later years.
Under the second alternative—a “full” SIP revision—a state may submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces a CSAPR federal trading program for the state with a state trading program integrated with the federal trading program, so long as the state trading program is substantively identical to the federal trading program or does not substantively differ from the federal trading program except as discussed above with regard to the allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions.
The CSAPR regulations identify several important consequences and limitations associated with approval of a full SIP revision. First, upon EPA's approval of a full SIP revision as correcting the deficiency in the state's SIP that was the basis for a particular set of CSAPR FIP requirements, the obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program is automatically eliminated for units subject to the state's jurisdiction without the need for a separate EPA withdrawal action, so long as EPA's approval of the SIP revision as meeting the requirements of the CSAPR regulations is full and unconditional.
In the CSAPR rulemaking, among other findings, EPA determined that air pollution transported from Alabama would unlawfully affect other states' ability to attain or maintain the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.
On October 26, 2015, Alabama submitted to EPA a SIP revision including provisions that, if approved, would incorporate into Alabama's SIP state trading program regulations that would replace the CSAPR federal trading program regulations with regard to Alabama units' ozone season NO
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 17, 2017 (82 FR 39070), EPA proposed to approve the portions of Alabama's October 26, 2015, and May 19, 2017, SIP submittals designed to replace the federal CSAPR NO
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of ADEM Administrative Code rules 335-3-8-.39 through 335-3-8-.70, state effective on June 9, 2017, comprising Alabama's TR NO
EPA is approving the portions of Alabama's October 26, 2015, and May 19, 2017, SIP submittals concerning the establishment for Alabama units of CSAPR state trading programs for ozone season NO
EPA promulgated the FIP provisions requiring Alabama units to participate in the federal CSAPR NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 5, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42.U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from the State of Missouri for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Section 110 of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.
This direct final rule will be effective December 5, 2017, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 6, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0356, to
Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA is approving the infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri received on July 08, 2013, as meeting the submittal requirements of 110(a)(1). EPA is approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M). EPA is not acting on the elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), interfering with maintenance of the NAAQs (prong 2) because those elements were not addressed in the SIP revision submittal. EPA is not acting on section 110(a)(2)(I). EPA will act on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—protection of visibility (prong 4) in a separate action.
A Technical Support Document (TSD) is included as part of the docket to discuss the details of this action, including analysis of how the SIP meets the applicable 110 requirements for infrastructure SIPs.
The state's submission has met the public notice requirements for the Ozone infrastructure SIP submission in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The
EPA is taking direct final action to approve elements of the July 08, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. As stated above, EPA is approving the revision as meeting the submittal requirement of section 110(a)(1) and approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prong 3, (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M). EPA will act on (D)(i)(II)—prong 4 in a separate action.
EPA is taking no further action with respect to elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2—because the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) that require subject units in Missouri to participate in the Federal CSAPR NO
EPA is not taking action on section 110(a)(2)(I). Section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as nonattainment areas, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of the CAA, relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment areas. EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address element (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.
We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e)* * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of North Dakota to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for sulfur dioxide (SO
This rule is effective on November 6, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0558. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kate Gregory, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6175,
Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are set forth in section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The elements that are the subject of this action are described in detail in our notice of proposed rulemaking published on June 6, 2017 (82 FR 25999).
In our proposed rule, the EPA proposed to approve some infrastructure elements and to take no action on others for the 2010 SO
No comments were received on our June 29, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking.
For reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is taking final action to approve infrastructure elements from the State's certifications as shown in Table 1. Elements we are taking no action on are reflected in Table 2.
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 state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide 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 rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 5, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA Section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(f) The North Dakota Department of Health provided submissions to meet infrastructure requirements for the State of North Dakota for the 2010 SO
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of portions of five State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), through the Florida Division of Air Resource Management, on June 23, 1999, July 1, 2011, December 12, 2011, February 27, 2013, and February 1, 2017. Florida's SIP revisions recodify, clarify, and reorganize the State's non-title V air permitting and compliance assurance program regulations consistent with flexibility provided
This rule will be effective November 6, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0105. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9031 and via electronic mail at
FDEP submitted to EPA for adoption into the Florida SIP five revisions, three of which were submitted on June 23, 1999, July 1, 2011, and February 27, 2013, as part of the State's efforts to clarify and streamline Florida's non-title V air permitting and compliance assurance program and to address EPA's minor source preconstruction requirements under 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. In addition, on December 12, 2011, FDEP submitted a SIP revision to add a definition of “North American Industry Classification System,” or “NAICS,” to the Florida SIP. On February 1, 2017, FDEP submitted a SIP revision to address requirements for emissions monitoring at stationary sources. The 1999 SIP submission includes amendments to 16 rule sections in the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) that were adopted by the State between 1997 and 1999 to clarify and streamline FDEP's permitting process. The 2011 SIP submission includes clarifying and corrective amendments to 11 F.A.C. rule sections affecting FDEP's permitting regulations that were adopted by the State between 1997 and 2010. In its 2013 SIP submission, FDEP updates the 1999 and 2011 SIP submissions by either resubmitting or withdrawing 12 of the 16 F.A.C. rule sections originally included in those submittals, and providing updated versions of the remaining four rule sections for incorporation into the Florida SIP.
In a proposed rulemaking published on August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37379), EPA proposed to approve specified portions of the five Florida SIP revisions on June 23, 1999, July 1, 2011, December 12, 2011, February 27, 2013, and February 1, 2017. The details of Florida's submissions and the rationale for EPA's actions are explained in the proposed rulemaking. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before September 11, 2017. EPA received no adverse comments on the proposed action. Accordingly, in this action, EPA is finalizing action regarding the relevant regulations (or portions thereof) from these five SIP submissions.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Florida Chapters 62-210.200 “Definitions,” which was state effective 3/28/12; 62-210.310 “Air General Permits,” state effective 6/29/11; 62-210.350 “Public Notice and Comment,” state effective 10/12/08; 62-296.100 “Purpose and Scope,” state effective 10/6/08; 62-296.405 “Fossil Fuel Steam Generators with More Than 250 Million Btu Per Hour Heat Input,” state effective 3/2/99; 62-296.406 “Fossil Fuel Steam Generators with Less Than 250 Million Btu Per Hour Heat Input, New and Existing Emissions Units,” state effective 3/2/99; 62-296.412 “Dry Cleaning Facilities,” state effective 3/11/10; 62-296.414 “Concrete Batching Plants,” state effective 1/10/07; 62-296.418 “Bulk Gasoline Plants,” state effective 3/11/10; 62-296.500 “Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)—Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NO
EPA is finalizing approval of portions of the five Florida SIP revisions submitted to EPA on June 23, 1999, July 1, 2011, December 12, 2011, February 27, 2013, and February 1, 2017, on the basis that they are consistent with the CAA and EPA's requirements for permitting air emission sources.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Are 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);
• do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• are 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
• do 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);
• do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• are not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• are 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
• do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 5, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of florpyrauxifen-benzyl in or on rice grain, freshwater fish, shellfish crustacean, and mollusc. Dow AgroSciences LLC requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective October 6, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 5, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0560, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; Main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0560 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 5, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0560, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is establishing tolerance levels that vary from the petitioned-for levels for certain crops and is correcting commodity definitions, as needed, to be consistent with current EPA policy. These changes are explained further in Unit IV.C.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for florpyrauxifen-benzyl including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with florpyrauxifen-benzyl follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Florpyrauxifen-benzyl is not genotoxic and there were no treatment-related findings up to the limit dose (1,000 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg)/day) or highest doses tested in the acute, short-term, sub-chronic, or chronic oral toxicity studies, two-generation
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by florpyrauxifen-benzyl as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Because no single or repeated dose study performed by any route of exposure produced an adverse effect following florpyrauxifen-benzyl exposure, toxicity endpoints and points of departure were not selected for florpyrauxifen-benzyl exposure scenarios and a quantitative risk assessment was not conducted. Instead, a qualitative human health risk assessment has been conducted to support the proposed uses of florpyrauxifen-benzyl.
Florpyrauxifen-benzyl is proposed for use on rice and aquatic sites. Humans could potentially be exposed to florpyrauxifen-benzyl residues in food (including fish and shellfish) because florpyrauxifen-benzyl may be applied directly to growing rice and aquatic sites. These applications can also result in florpyrauxifen-benzyl reaching surface and ground water, both of which can serve as sources of drinking water. There are no proposed uses in residential settings and there are no anticipated residential exposures.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure, unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor. EPA considers the toxicity database to be complete and there are no residual uncertainties in the florpyrauxifen-benzyl exposure database. Because there are no threshold effects in the florpyrauxifen-benzyl database, the requirement to retain this safety factor is inapplicable to the current tolerance action.
Based on the lack of toxicity from exposure to residues of florpyrauxifen-benzyl, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to florpyrauxifen-benzyl.
Adequate analytical enforcement methodology which uses high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS-MS) to quantitate residues of florpyrauxifen-benzyl and florpyrauxifen is available for enforcement.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for florpyrauxifen-benzyl.
Although a tolerance for rice, grain (dehulled) was requested, EPA determined that no such tolerance is required. Rice, grain (dehulled) is covered by the rice grain tolerance. Based on the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) statistical calculation applied to the field trial (U.S.) residue data, EPA determined that the appropriate tolerance level for rice, grain is 0.30 ppm. The OECD calculation procedures are globally recognized for calculating MRLs to facilitate the harmonization of regulatory limits.
For fish-shellfish, mollusc the tolerance level is established at 20 ppm, rather than the requested 9 ppm, based on the residue data. Also, to be consistent with current EPA policy, the commodity definitions were revised as fish-freshwater finfish; fish-shellfish, crustacean; and fish-shellfish, mollusc, and the Agency added a significant figure to the tolerances for rice, grain; fish-freshwater finfish; and fish-shellfish, crustacean.
Despite the lack of toxicity, the EPA is establishing tolerances as requested by the petitioner for international trade purposes. Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of florpyrauxifen-benzyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on rice, grain at 0.30 ppm; fish-freshwater finfish at 2.0 ppm; fish-shellfish, crustacean at 0.50 ppm; and fish-shellfish, mollusc at 20 ppm.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
In rule document 2017-18463 beginning on page 43865 in the issue of Wednesday, September 20, 2017, make the following correction:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) addresses the 758-769/788-799 MHz band, which the Commission licensed to the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) on a nationwide basis pursuant to the provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. The Report and Order adopts procedures for administering the state opt-out process as provided under the Public Safety Spectrum Act, as well delineating the specific standards by which the Commission will evaluate state opt-out applications.
Effective November 6, 2017, except for § 90.532(b) and (c), which contain information collection requirements that are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The FCC will publish a document in the
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the Office of the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
Roberto Mussenden, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-1428. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Nicole Ongele at 202-418-2991, or send an email to
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, PS Docket No. 16-269; FCC 17-75, adopted and released on June 22, 2016. The complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 and can be downloaded at
In 2016, the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 81 FR 64825, September 21, 2016, sought comment sought comment on implementation of the opt-out review process to be conducted by the Commission, pursuant to certain provisions of the Public Safety Spectrum Act. These included: The procedures and timing for states to notify FirstNet, NTIA, and the Commission of their opt-out elections, completing their RFPs, and for filing their alternative state plans with the Commission; the Commission review process, including timing, defining the scope of participation by interested parties, and treatment of confidential information; what criteria that Commission will use in evaluating alternative state plans; what elements states should include in their alternative state plans to demonstrate compliance with the relevant statutory criteria; and how the Commission's decisions to approve or disapprove alternative state plans will be documented.
In the Report and Order, the Commission finds that the 90-day period states have to inform the Commission of its opt-out decision shall commence when a state has received statutory “notice” from FirstNet of the final plan for that state. The Commission also finds that within 180 days of providing its opt-out notice to the Commission, a state must have (1) issued an RFP providing for full deployment of the state RAN (
The Commission specifies that Plans filed with the Commission must, at a minimum, (1) address the four general subject areas identified in the Act (construction, maintenance, operation, and improvements of the state RAN), (2) address the two interoperability requirements set forth in sections 6302(e)(3)(C)(i)(I) and (II) of the Act, and (3) specifically address all of the requirements of the Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability.
The Commission will treat each state opt-out application as a separate restricted proceeding under our rules. The parties to these proceedings will initially include the state filing the application, FirstNet, and NTIA. Other persons or entities seeking to participate in a proceeding may petition the Commission for leave to intervene based on a demonstrated showing of interest. The Commission further imposes a 90-day aspirational shot clock upon itself for Commission action on a properly filed alternative plan.
The Commission will confine its review to the RAN elements of state alternative plans, which it defines as all the cell site equipment, antennas, and backhaul equipment, based on commercial standards, that are required to enable wireless communications with devices using the public safety broadband spectrum including standard E-UTRAN elements (
Finally the Commission states that the full Commission will issue a separate Order for each opt-out request. Each order will provide a brief explanation of the Commission's decision based on the statutory criteria as applied to the information submitted in the record.
This document contains new information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invited the general public to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this R&O as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
In this present document, we have assessed the effects of state opt-out procedures and find that they have no effect on businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission sent a copy of this Report & Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Administrative practice and procedure, Common carriers, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.
(a)
(b)
(1) Such notification shall also certify that the State has notified the First Responder Network Authority and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of its election.
(2) If such notice is filed by the Governor's designee, it shall include memorialization of the Governor's delegation of authority in writing with the notice.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) An interoperability showing, demonstrating:
(i) Compliance with the minimum technical interoperability requirements developed under section 6203 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012; and
(ii) Interoperability with the nationwide public safety broadband network.
(2) Certifications by the State Governor or the Governor's designee, attesting:
(i) Adherence to FirstNet network policies identified by FirstNet as relating to technical interoperability; and
(ii) Completion of the state's request for proposal within 180 days of receipt of notice of the State Plan furnished by the First Responder Network Authority. Such certification may only be made if the state has:
(A) Issued a request for proposal for the state's Radio Access Network;
(B) Received bids for such network; and
(C) Selected a vendor(s).
(f)
(1) The First Responder Network Authority, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and any entity granted party status under paragraph (c) of this section may file comments within 15 days of the issuance of the Public Notice set forth in this paragraph (f).
(2) The relevant state may file reply comments within 30 days of the issuance of the Public Notice set forth in this paragraph (f).
(3) States can file the plans, and those granted party status to each proceeding may file comments on the plan, in the specified state docket via a dedicated email address specified by the Commission or via certified mail to the Office of the Secretary.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, for
This rule is effective November 6, 2017.
This final rule is available on the Internet at
Roxanna Hinzman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see
This rule makes final the listing of
We have determined that the threats to
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for
In the proposed rule published on October 11, 2016 (81 FR 70282), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by December 12, 2016. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Miami Herald and Key West Citizen. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.
Also, in accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the four species and their habitat, biological needs, and threats. We received responses from all three peer reviewers.
All substantive information provided during the comment period has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of
We received one public comment with new information on the historical distribution of
In the Background section, we made the following changes based on peer review and public comments:
(1) We incorporated new information on the life history, site locations, abundance and distribution of
(2) We incorporated new information on the ecology and plant species composition of pine rockland, marl prairie, coastal berm, and rockland hammock habitats.
(3) We incorporated new information regarding
(4) We incorporated new information on the taxonomic indicators of
In the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section, we made the following changes:
(5) We incorporated new information regarding the threat of scale insects and
(6) We clarified our discussion of regulatory protection for State-listed plants on private lands through FAC 5B-40.
(7) We clarified our discussion of restoration management to indicate it only be conducted by highly trained crews.
(8) We incorporated new information regarding potential drier conditions in response to hydrological restoration within the Everglades.
The genus
The online Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants (Wunderlin and Hansen 2016, p. 1), Integrated Taxonomic System (ITIS 2016, p. 1), NatureServe (2016, p. 1), and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) (Coile and Garland 2003, p. 19) indicate that
The climate of south Florida where
The historical range of
The current range of
The largest population occurs at Long Pine Key in ENP (Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 42; Gann
In Miami-Dade County, outside ENP, pine rocklands tracts are orders of magnitude smaller and exist in a matrix of agricultural, commercial, and residential development. Approximately 73 plants were observed at Larry and Penny Thompson Park, within the Richmond Pine Rocklands (Possley and McSweeney 2005, p. 1). Extant populations have been found at Quail Roost Pineland (two plants), Navy Wells Pineland Preserve (four plants), and Sunny Palms Pinelands (two plants) (Possley 2011a and 2011b, pers. comm.). The subspecies has been observed in pine rocklands at Grant Hammock and Pine Ridge Sanctuary (Bradley
Surveys in the Gum Slough region of Lostmans Pines in BCNP reported finding
The online Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants uses the name
The climate of south Florida where
All known historical and current records for
A single
The current range of
In 2002,
The online Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants uses the name
The climate of south Florida where
A detailed description of pine rockland habitat is discussed in the proposed listing rule (81 FR 70282; October 11, 2016).
The current range of
Chapman (1886, p.102) was the first to report this taxon in Florida, calling it the tropical
The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (2016, p. 1) indicates that the taxonomic standing for
The climate of south Florida where
The historical range of
The current range of
In 1999,
Extensive surveys of extant
The population at RHMP declined from 31 plants in 2004 to just 1 woody plant and 3 seedlings in 2008. In 2009, Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden (FTBG) initiated reintroduction of
In 2003,
Ongoing survey data were used from the Crandon Park population to conduct a preliminary population viability analysis (PVA) (Maschinski
The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any one of five factors affecting its continued existence. In this section, we summarize the biological condition of
The modification and destruction of the habitats that support
In Miami-Dade County, development and agriculture have reduced pine rockland habitat by 90 percent in mainland south Florida. Pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade County, including ENP, was reduced to about 11 percent of its natural extent, from approximately 74,000 hectares (ha) (183,000 acres (ac)) in the early 1900s, to only 8,140 ha (20,100 ac) in 1996 (Kernan and Bradley 1996, p. 2). The largest remaining intact pine rockland (approximately 2,313 ha (5,716 ac)) is Long Pine Key in ENP. Outside of ENP, only about 1 percent of the pine rocklands on the Miami Rock Ridge have escaped clearing, and much of what is left are small remnants scattered throughout the Miami metropolitan area, isolated from other natural areas (Herndon 1998, p. 1). Habitat loss continues to occur in these plants' range, and most remaining suitable habitat has been negatively altered through human activity (illegal clearing, dumping), preclusion of fire, and introduction of nonnative species.
Significant remaining pine rockland habitat occurs on private lands and publically owned lands that are not dedicated to or managed for conservation. The species occurring on this remaining suitable habitat face threats from habitat loss and degradation, and threats are expected to accelerate with increased development. The human population within Miami-Dade County is currently greater than 2.4 million people, and the population is expected to grow to more than 4 million by 2060, an annual increase of roughly 30,000 people (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 20).
Some of the known populations of
The marl prairie habitat that also supports
Two extant populations of
Eight populations of
Currently, there are plans to develop 55 ha (137 ac) of the largest remaining parcel of pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade County, the Richmond Pine Rocklands, with a shopping center and residential construction (Ram 2014, p. 2). This parcel has been called the “the largest and most important area of pine rockland in Miami-Dade County outside of Everglades National Park” (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 4). Although
The remaining pine rocklands in the Miami metropolitan area are severely fragmented and isolated from each other. Habitat fragmentation reduces the size of plant populations and increases spatial isolation of remnants. The effects of fragmentation on
While pollination research has not been conducted for
The effects of fragmentation on fire go beyond edge effects and include reduced likelihood and extent of fires, and altered behavior and characteristics (
Forest fragments in urban settings are also subject to increased likelihood of certain types of human-related disturbance, such as the dumping of trash (Chavez and Tynon 2000, p. 405) and illegal clearing. The many effects of habitat fragmentation may work in concert to negatively impact the local persistence of a species, especially in small populations (see discussion below); when a species' range of occurrence is limited, as with these four plants, threats to local persistence increase extinction risk.
One of the primary threats to
Today, natural fires are unlikely to occur or are likely to be suppressed in the remaining, highly fragmented pine rockland habitat. The suppression of natural fires has reduced the size of the areas that burn, and habitat fragmentation has prevented fire from moving across the landscape in a natural way. Without fire, successional climax from pine rockland to rockland hammock takes 10 to 25 years, and displacement of native species by invasive, nonnative plants often occurs. All occurrences of
Whether the dense canopy is composed of pine, hardwoods, nonnatives, or a combination, seed germination and establishment are inhibited in fire-suppressed habitat due to accumulated leaf litter, which also changes soil moisture and nutrient availability (Hiers
After an extended period of inadequate fire management in pine rocklands, it becomes necessary to control invading native hardwoods mechanically, as excess growth of native hardwoods would result in a hot fire, which can cause mortality of pines and destroy the rootstocks and seed banks of other native plants. Mechanical treatments cannot entirely replace fire because pine trees, understory shrubs, grasses, and herbs all contribute to an ever-increasing layer of leaf litter, covering herbs and preventing germination, as discussed above. Leaf litter will continue to accumulate even if hardwoods are removed mechanically. In addition, the ashes left by fires provide important post-fire nutrient cycling, which is not provided via mechanical removal.
Studies on the impacts of fire on
It is anticipated that some natural mortality of
Federal (Service, National Park Service [NPS]), State (Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)), and County (Miami-Dade, DERM) land managers, and nonprofits (Institute for Regional Conservation (IRC)) implement prescribed fire on public and private lands within the ranges of
While ENP, BCNP, and various Miami-Dade County conservation lands (
While management of some County conservation lands includes regular burning, other lands remain severely fire-suppressed. Implementation of a prescribed fire program in Miami-Dade County has been hampered by a shortage of resources, and by logistical difficulties and public concern related to burning next to residential areas. Many homes have been built in a
Conservation efforts in Miami's EEL Preserves have been underway for many years. In Miami-Dade County, conservation lands are and have been monitored by FTBG and IRC, in coordination with the EEL Program, to assess habitat status and determine any changes that may pose a threat to or alter the abundance of these species. Impacts to habitat via nonnative species and natural stochastic events are monitored and actively managed in areas where the taxon is known to occur. These programs are long-term and ongoing in Miami-Dade County; however, programs are limited by the availability of annual funding. In particular, fire management remains inadequate at many sites.
Since 2005, the Service has funded IRC to facilitate restoration and management of privately owned pine rockland habitats in Miami-Dade County. These programs included prescribed burns, nonnative plant control, light debris removal, hardwood management, reintroduction of pines where needed, and development of management plans. One of these programs, called the Pine Rockland Initiative, includes 10-year cooperative agreements between participating landowners and the Service/IRC to ensure restored areas will be managed appropriately during that time. Although most of these objectives have been achieved, IRC has not been able to conduct the desired prescribed burns, due to logistical difficulties as discussed above (see “Fire Management,” above).
Habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation, and associated pressures from increased human population are major threats to the four plants; these threats are expected to increase as remaining pine rocklands and other habitats are lost to development, placing these plants at greater risk.
The best available data do not indicate that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a threat to
Scale insects (Coccoidea) and
Under this factor, we examine whether threats to these plants discussed under the other factors are continuing due to an inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to take into account “those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species . . . ” In relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal laws, regulations, and other such binding legal mechanisms that may ameliorate or exacerbate any of the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species.
Having evaluated the impact of the threats as mitigated by any such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to which existing regulatory mechanisms ameliorate or exacerbate the specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified threats. In this section, we review existing Federal, State, and local regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or remove threats to
Lands managed by the National Park Service are subject to the NPS Organic Act of 1916, which provides that the “fundamental purpose” of those lands “is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (16 U.S.C. 1). Most units of the National Park System also have their own specific enabling legislation, but the 1970 General Authorities Act makes it clear that all units are united into a single National Park System. Furthermore, no activities shall be allowed “in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress” (16 U.S.C. 1a-1).
Populations of
Florida Statutes 581.185 sections (3)(a) and (3)(b) prohibit any person from willfully destroying or harvesting any species listed as endangered or threatened on the Index or growing such a plant on the private land of another, or on any public land, without first obtaining the written permission of the landowner and a permit from the Florida Department of Plant Industry. The statute further provides that any person willfully destroying or harvesting; transporting, carrying, or conveying on any public road or highway; or selling or offering for sale any plant listed in the Index as endangered must have a permit from the State at all times when engaged in any such activities. Further, Florida Statutes 581.185 section (10) provides for consultation similar to section 7 of the Act for listed species, by requiring the Department of Transportation to notify the FDACS and the Endangered Plant Advisory Council of planned highway construction at the time bids are first advertised, to facilitate evaluation of the project for listed plant populations, and to provide “for the appropriate disposal of such plants” (
However, this statute provides no substantive protection of habitat at this time. Florida Statutes 581.185 section (8) waives State regulation for certain classes of activities for all species on the Index, including the clearing or removal of regulated plants for agricultural, forestry, mining, construction (residential, commercial, or infrastructure), and fire-control activities by a private landowner or his or her agent.
In 1984, section 24-49 of the Code of Miami-Dade County established regulation of County-designated NFCs, which include both pine rocklands and tropical hardwood hammocks. These regulations were placed on specific properties throughout the county by an act of the Board of County Commissioners in an effort to protect environmentally sensitive forest lands. The Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) has regulatory authority over NFCs and is charged with enforcing regulations that provide partial protection on the Miami Rock Ridge. Miami-Dade Code typically allows up to 20 percent of a pine rockland designated as NFC to be developed, and requires that the remaining 80 percent be placed under a perpetual covenant. In certain circumstances, where the landowner can demonstrate that limiting development to 20 percent does not allow for “reasonable use” of the property, additional development may be approved. NFC landowners are also required to obtain an NFC permit for any work, including removal of nonnatives within the boundaries of the NFC on their property. The NFC program is responsible for ensuring that NFC permits are issued in accordance with the limitations and requirements of the code and that appropriate NFC preserves are established and maintained in conjunction with the issuance of an NFC permit. The NFC program currently regulates approximately 600 pine rockland or pine rockland/hammock properties, comprising approximately 1,200 ha (3,000 ac) of habitat (Joyner 2013a, pers. comm.).
Although the NFC program is designed to protect rare and important upland (non-wetlands) habitats in south Florida, it has limitations for protection of the four plants discussed in this rule. For example, in certain circumstances where landowners can demonstrate that limiting development to 20 percent does not allow for “reasonable use” of the property, additional development may be approved. Furthermore, Miami-Dade County Code provides for up to 100 percent of the NFC to be developed on a parcel in limited circumstances for parcels less than 2.02 ha (5 ac) in size and only requires coordination with the landowner if they plan to develop property or perform work within the NFC designated area. As such, the majority of the existing private, forested NFC parcels is isolated fragments, without management obligations or preserve designation, as development has not been proposed at a level that would trigger the NFC regulatory requirements. Often, nonnative vegetation over time begins to dominate and degrade the undeveloped and unmanaged NFC landscape until it no longer meets the legal threshold of an NFC, which requires the land to be dominated by native vegetation. When development of such degraded NFCs is proposed, Miami-Dade County Code requires delisting of the degraded areas as part of the development process. Property previously designated as NFC is removed from the list even before development is initiated because of the abundance of nonnative species, making it no longer considered to be jurisdictional or subject to the NFC protection requirements of Miami-Dade County Code (Grossenbacher 2013, pers. comm.).
Currently,
Although many populations of the four plants are afforded some level of protection because they are on public conservation lands, especially Federal lands, existing regulatory mechanisms vary in strength and scope, and do not provide substantive protection of habitat at this time. They have not led to a sufficient reduction of threats posed to these plants by a wide array of sources (see discussions under Factors A and E in this rule).
Other natural or manmade factors affect
Nonnative, invasive plants compete with native plants for space, light, water, and nutrients, and make habitat
Nonnative plants have significantly affected pine rocklands and negatively impact all occurrences of
Nonnative plants in pine rocklands can affect the characteristics of a fire when it occurs. Historically, pine rocklands had an open, low understory where natural fires remained patchy with low temperature intensity.
Nonnative species occur throughout the ranges of the four plants. In ENP and BCNP, invasives tend to be fewer due to the insularity of these sites and the NPS's control programs. Nevertheless, most areas require annual treatments to remove incipient invasions. Management of nonnative, invasive plants in pine rocklands in Miami-Dade County is further complicated because the vast majority of pine rocklands are small, fragmented areas bordered by urban development. Areas near managed pine rockland that contain nonnative species can act as a seed source of nonnatives, allowing them to continue to invade the surrounding pine rockland (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 13).
Nonnative plant species are also a concern on private lands, where often these species are not controlled due to associated costs, lack of interest, or lack of knowledge of detrimental impacts to the ecosystem. Undiscovered populations of
While no studies have investigated the effect of mowing on
Recreational use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) is a threat to
Endemic species whose populations exhibit a high degree of isolation are extremely susceptible to extinction from both random and nonrandom catastrophic natural or human-caused events. Species that are restricted to geographically limited areas are inherently more vulnerable to extinction than widespread species because of the increased risk of genetic bottlenecks, random demographic fluctuations, effects of climate change, and localized catastrophes such as hurricanes and disease outbreaks (Mangel and Tier
Small, isolated populations, such as those in fragmented habitat, often exhibit reduced levels of genetic variability, although the ultimate effect of these changes is dependent on a plant's specific life history, reproductive system, and interaction with pollinators and dispersal vectors (which may themselves be affected by fragmentation) (Young
Climatic changes, including sea level rise, are major threats to the flora of south Florida, including
Global sea level has increased by 0.20 to 0.23 m (8 to 9 in) since 1880, with the rate of increase over the past 20 years doubling (Service 2017, p. 5). An average 0.08 m (3 in) increase in overall global sea level rise has occurred between 1992 and 2015 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory 2015, p. 2). This is equivalent to the Florida coastline subsiding at a rate of 0.04 inches a year (Service 2017, p. 6). The long-term trend in sea level rise at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) Key West Station, Florida shows a 0.0024 m (0.09 in) increase per year from 1913 to 2015 of the mean high water line. The NOAA Vaca Key Station (City of Marathon) shows a 0.0035 m (0.14 in) per year sea level rise between 1971 (start of data collection) to 2015 (NOAA 2017a). Mean high water line is defined as, “The line on a chart or map which represents the intersection of the land with the water surface at the elevation of mean high water” (NOAA National Ocean Service [NOS]) 2017).
While the sea level rise rate for Florida has been equivalent to that experienced globally, recent analysis is now indicating an accelerated rate for the eastern United States above that of the global rate (NOAA 2017b, p. 25; Carter
Other processes expected to be affected by projected warming include temperatures, rainfall (amount, seasonal timing, and distribution), and storms (frequency and intensity) (discussed more specifically under “Environmental Stochasticity,” below). The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) modeled several scenarios combining various levels of sea level rise, temperature change, and precipitation differences with human population growth, policy assumptions, and conservation funding changes (see “Alternative Future Landscape Models,” below). All of the scenarios, from small climate change shifts to major changes, indicate significant effects on coastal Miami-Dade County.
In the United States, the average temperatures have increased by 0.77 to 1.1 °C (1.3 to 1.9 °F) since record keeping began in 1895 (Service 2017, p. 2). The decade from 2000 to 2009 is documented as the warmest since record keeping began in 1895 (Service 2017, p. 2). The average temperatures in south Florida have increased 0.83 °C (1.5 °F) or more since 1991 (Service 2017, p. 2). Because of the current condition of human-induced emissions (that is, the pattern of continued release of greenhouse gas (GHG) added to those already occurring in the atmosphere), increases in surface air temperature continue to rise. Even if there was an immediate and aggressive reduction to all GHG emissions caused by humans, there would still be expected continued increases in surface air temperature (IPCC 2013; pp. 19-20).
Precipitation patterns are also changing. The National Climate
Heavy downpours are currently increasing and have especially increased over the last 30 to 50 years in Florida. There is currently a 27 percent increase in the frequency and intensity of heavy downpours since the 1970s (Service 2017, p. 4). Increased inland flooding is predicted during heavy rain events in low-lying areas. With worsening storms, storm surges along coastlines become stronger and push inland further. Inundation of soils from storm surges can cause saltwater intrusion. More powerful storm surges exacerbate effects of the increased sea level along shorelines. Increased incidences of inland flooding and of low-lying areas are being documented regionally and locally (Staletovich 2016; Sheridan 2015).
Decades prior to inundation, pine rocklands are likely to undergo vegetation shifts related to climate change, triggered by changes to hydrology (wetter), salinity (higher), and increasing vulnerability to storm surge (pulse events causing massive erosion and salinization of soils) (Saha
The Science and Technology Committee of the Miami-Dade County Climate Change Task Force (Wanless
Drier conditions and increased variability in precipitation associated with climate change are expected to hamper successful regeneration of forests and cause shifts in vegetation types through time (Wear and Greis 2012, p. 39). Although it has not been well studied, existing pine rocklands have probably been affected by reductions in the mean water table. Climate changes are also forecasted to extend fire seasons and the frequency of large fire events throughout the Coastal Plain (Wear and Greis 2012, p. 43). These factors will likely cause an increase in wildfires and exacerbate complications related to prescribed burning (
To accommodate the large uncertainty in sea level rise projections, researchers must estimate effects from a range of scenarios. Various model scenarios developed at MIT and GeoAdaptive Inc. have projected possible trajectories of future transformation of the south Florida landscape by 2060 based upon four main drivers: Climate change, shifts in planning approaches and regulations, human population change, and variations in financial resources for conservation. The scenarios do not account for temperature, precipitation, or species' habitat shifts due to climate change, and no storm surge effects are considered. The current MIT scenarios range from 0.09 to 1.0 m (0.3 to 3.3 ft) of sea level rise by 2060 (Vargas-Moreno and Flaxman 2010, pp. 1-6).
Based on the most recent estimates of anticipated sea level rise, the upward trend in recent projections toward the higher range of earlier sea level rise estimates (discussed above), and the data available to us at this time, we evaluated potential effects of sea level rise using the current “high” range MIT scenario as well as comparing elevations of remaining pine rockland fragments and extant and historical occurrences of
The rate of sea level rise will increase as time passes. This is due to atmospheric and ocean warming and the
Most populations of
Actual impacts may be greater or less than anticipated based upon the high variability of factors involved (
Further direct losses to extant populations of all four plants are expected due to habitat loss and modification from sea level rise through 2100. We analyzed existing sites that support populations of the four plants using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Level Rise and Coastal Impacts viewer. Below we discuss general implications of sea level rise within the range of projections discussed above on the current distribution of these species. The NOAA tool uses 1-foot increments. Our analysis is based on 0.91 m (3 ft) and 1.8 m (6 ft) of sea level rise.
Based on a higher sea level rise of 1.8 m (6 ft), as projected by NOAA, much larger portions of urban Miami-Dade County, including both extant populations of
Following a 1.8-m (6 ft) rise in sea level, approximately 75 percent of presently extant pine rocklands on the Miami Rock Ridge would still remain above sea level. However, an unknown percentage of remaining pine rockland fragments would be negatively impacted by water table and soil salinization, which would be further exacerbated due to isolation from mainland fresh water flows.
Projections of sea level rise above 1.8 m (6 ft) indicate that very little pine rockland would remain, with the vast majority either being inundated or experiencing vegetation shifts, resulting in the extirpation of all known populations of
Endemic species whose populations exhibit a high degree of isolation and narrow geographic distribution, such as
The climate of southern Florida is driven by a combination of local, regional, and global events, regimes, and oscillations. There are three main “seasons”: (1) The wet season, which is hot, rainy, and humid from June through October; (2) the official hurricane season that extends one month beyond the wet season (June 1 through November 30), with peak season being August and September; and (3) the dry season, which is drier and cooler, from November through May. In the dry season, periodic surges of cool and dry continental air masses influence the weather with short-duration rain events followed by long periods of dry weather.
Florida is considered the most vulnerable State in the United States to hurricanes and tropical storms (Stefanova
Hurricanes, storm surge, and extreme high tide events are natural events that can negatively impact these four plants. Hurricanes and tropical storms can modify habitat (
Other processes to be affected by climate change, related to environmental stochasticity, include temperatures, rainfall (amount, seasonal timing, and distribution), and storms (frequency and intensity). Temperatures are projected to increase by 2-5 °C (3.6-9 °F) for North America by the end of this century (IPCC 2013, pp. 5-8, 20). These factors will likely cause an increase in wildfires and exacerbate complications related to prescribed burning or other management needed to restore and maintain habitat for the four plants. Based upon modeling, Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are expected to decrease (Knutson
Occasional freezing temperatures that occur in south Florida pose a risk to
Hydrology is a key ecosystem component that affects rare plant distributions and their viability (Gann
While projects designed to restore the historical hydrology of the Everglades and other natural systems in southern Florida (collectively known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)) are beneficial to the Everglades ecosystem, some may produce collateral impacts to extant pine rockland, marl prairies, and associated habitats within the region through inundation or increased hydroperiods. The effects of changes in regional hydrology through restoration may have impacts on the four plants and their habitats. Sadle (2012, pers. comm.) suggested various CERP projects (such as C-111 spreader canal; L-31N seepage barrier), specifically the operation of pumps and associated detention areas along the ENP boundary, may influence (through excessive water discharges) select portions of eastern Long Pine Key. Increased and longer-duration hydroperiods within the pine rockland and marl prairie habitats where these species occur may lead to a reduction in the amount of suitable habitat, a potential reduction in the area occupied and a reduction in the number of individuals found in ENP and BCNP. Conversely, Maschinski and Lange (2015, pp. 31-33) observed an increase in
NPS, the Service, Miami-Dade County, and the State of Florida have ongoing nonnative plant management programs to reduce threats on public lands, as funding and resources allow. In Miami-Dade County, nonnative, invasive plant management is very active, with a goal to treat all publically owned properties at least once a year and more often in many cases. IRC and FTBG conducts research and monitoring in various natural areas within Miami-Dade County and the Florida Keys for various endangered plant species and nonnative, invasive species. For the four plants, monitoring detects declines that lead to small population size, changes in habitat due to sea level rise, and declines due to stochastic events. For nonnatives, monitoring is an integral part of efforts to detect and control invasive plant and animal species.
FTBG has provided 16,908
Threats from other natural or manmade factors to these four plants include nonnative, invasive plants; management practices (such as mowing); recreation (including ORV use), effects from small population size and isolation; limited geographic range; and stochastic events including hurricanes, storm surges, and wildfires. Additionally, these plants are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including sea level rise, as changes in the water table, increased soil salinity from partial inundation, and storm surge will likely result in vegetation shifts in the decades prior to the fully anticipated sea level rise. Some of these threats (
When two or more threats affect populations of
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or threatened species and should be included on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to
Due to the stressors described in detail above,
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The phrase “significant portion of its range” is not defined by the Act, and a district court has held that aspects of the Service's Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37577 (July 1, 2014)) (SPR Policy) were not valid. Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, No. 14-cv-02506-RM (D. Ariz. Mar. 29, 2017) (Pygmy-Owl Decision).
Although the court's order in that case has not yet gone into effect, if the court denies the pending motion for reconsideration, the SPR Policy would become vacated. Therefore, we have examined the plain language of the Act and court decisions addressing the Service's application of the SPR phrase in various listing decisions, and for purposes of this rulemaking we are applying the interpretation set out below for the phrase “significant portion of its range” and its context in determining whether or not a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. Because the interpretation we are applying is consistent with the SPR Policy, we summarize herein the bases for our interpretation, and also refer the public to the SPR Policy itself for a more-detailed explanation of our reasons for interpreting the phrase in this way.
An important factor that influences the question of whether an SPR analysis is necessary here is what the consequence would be if the Service were to find that
Consistent with the district court case law, we interpret that the consequence of finding that
Because we found
Because we found that
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or
(2) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. In determining whether a designation would not be beneficial, the factors the Service may consider include but are not limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of “critical habitat.”
There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism identified under Factor B for these species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such threat. In the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, we next determine whether such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. We have determined that there are habitat-based threats to these species identified under Factor A. Therefore, we find that the designation of critical habitat would be beneficial to these species through the provisions of section 7 of the Act. Because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to the four plant species and would be beneficial, we find that designation of critical habitat is prudent for
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we must find whether critical habitat for the four plant species is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to identify any area that meets the definition of “critical habitat.”
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered for designation as critical habitat. A careful assessment of the economic impacts that may occur due to a critical habitat designation is still ongoing, and we are in the process of acquiring the necessary information needed to perform that assessment. The information sufficient to perform a required analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking. Accordingly, we find that critical habitat for these species, in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act, to be not determinable at this time. When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, a recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within these species' habitat that may require consultation as described in the preceding paragraph and include management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the National Park Service (ENP and BCNP), Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security (United States Coast Guard); issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
With respect to endangered plants, prohibitions outlined at 50 CFR 17.61 make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or to remove and reduce to possession any such plant species from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for endangered plants, the Act prohibits malicious damage or destruction of any such species on any area under Federal jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of any such species on any other area in knowing violation of any State law or regulation, or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law. Exceptions to these prohibitions are outlined in 50 CFR 17.62.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.62. With regard to endangered plants, the Service may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise prohibited by 50 CFR 17.61 for scientific purposes or for enhancing the propagation or survival of endangered plants.
With respect to threatened plants, 50 CFR 17.71 provides that all of the provisions in 50 CFR 17.61 shall apply to threatened plants. These provisions make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or to remove and reduce to possession any such plant species from areas under Federal jurisdiction. However, there is one exception for threatened plants. Seeds of cultivated specimens of species treated as threatened shall be exempt from all the provisions of 50 CFR 17.61, provided that a statement that the seeds are of “cultivated origin” accompanies the seeds or their container during the course of any activity otherwise subject to these regulations.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened plants under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.72. A permit issued under this section must be for one of the following: scientific purposes, the enhancement of the propagation or survival of threatened species, economic hardship, botanical or horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or other activities consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
(1) Normal agricultural and silvicultural practices, including herbicide and pesticide use, which are carried out in accordance with any existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best management practices; and
(2) Normal residential landscape activities.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see
With
Based on the best available information, the following activities may potentially result in a violation of section 9 the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Importing any such species into, or exporting any of the four plant species from, the United States.
(2) Removing and reducing to possession any of the four plant species from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damaging or destroying
(3) Delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity, any of the four plant species.
(4) Selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any of the four plant species.
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. No tribal lands are affected by this final rule.
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Office of the Secretary (OST); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of withdrawal of proposed rulemaking and related pilot programs.
The Department of Transportation (the Department) is withdrawing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued on March 6, 2015, that proposed to amend its regulations implementing the Government-wide Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards to permit recipients and subrecipients of certain DOT funds to impose geographic-based hiring preferences whenever not otherwise prohibited by Federal law. The Department is withdrawing this NPRM because, after review of all comments, the Department has determined that promulgating a provision to allow geographic-based hiring preferences is not practicable for the efficient and cost-effective delivery of projects. Additionally, this Notice rescinds two related pilot programs: 1. Innovative Contracting and 2. FHWA HUD Livability Local Hire Initiative.
As of October 6, 2017, the NPRM “Geographic-Based Hiring Preferences in Administering Federal Awards,” published on March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12092), is withdrawn. As of October 6, 2017, the Department's two experimental contracting pilot programs—1. Innovative Contracting (Local Labor Hire) (80 FR 12557), and 2. the FHWA HUD Livability Local Hire Initiative (75 FR 36467)—are withdrawn.
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9152.
Terence Carlson, Assistant General Counsel for General Law (OST-C10), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9152.
On March 6, 2015, the Department published an NPRM proposing to amend the Department's regulations at 2 CFR part 1201 to permit recipients and subrecipients of certain DOT funds to impose geographic-based hiring preferences whenever not otherwise prohibited by Federal law. On March 13, 2015, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) filed a comment requesting that the Department extend the comment period for the NPRM by 30 days to May 6, 2015. The Department granted APTA's request on April 8, 2015 (80 FR 18784).
Recipients and subrecipients at the local government level have local hiring provisions that they apply to procurements that do not involve Federal funding. However, the Department's regulations at 2 CFR part 1201, which adopted the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revised Government-wide Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal awards to non-Federal entities at 2 CFR part 200 (Common Rule), prohibit the use of in-State or local geographic-based preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals except where Federal statute mandates or encourages the use of such preferences. This prohibition extends to the use of geographic-based hiring preferences in contracts that are awarded by recipients and subrecipients with Federal financial assistance since such preferences could result in a competitive advantage for contractors based in the targeted hiring area.
Under the NPRM, the Department proposed to amend Part 1201 by promulgating a provision that would have deviated from the OMB guidance by making clear that geographic-based hiring preferences might be used in certain DOT grant programs. However, the proposed deviation would have only applied to the extent that such geographic-based hiring preferences would not have otherwise been prohibited by Federal statute or regulation.
Approximately 181 comments were filed in response to the NPRM. These comments were submitted by approximately 23 contractors, 22 contractor trade groups, 11 rolling stock manufacturers, 4 unions, 14 government agencies, 32 advocacy groups, 70 individuals, and 5 Federal and State elected officials (U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer, U.S. Representative Tom Reed, Georgia State Senator Nan Orrock, California State Senator Connie M. Leyva, and California State Assembly Member Cheryl R. Brown). All of the construction and rolling stock industry comments were opposed to the adoption of the proposed rule, while the advocacy groups and unions all were in favor. The individual commenters were split. States and municipalities were mostly in favor of the proposed rule. However, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Regional Transportation District in Denver (RTD-Denver), Foothill Transit, and the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority expressed concerns with the implementation of the rule. Generally, commenters agreed that transportation investments and policies can improve access to jobs, education, and goods movement, while providing construction and operations jobs. However, many commenters questioned the assertion that local and geographic-based hiring preferences led to such economic benefits.
While there were comments regarding the benefits of transportation investments, commenters opposed to the Department's proposed amendments to Part 1201 expressed concerns about the unintended consequences of the NPRM, including, for example, impacts on safety, competitive bidding, the ability to maintain a well-trained workforce, and increased project costs.
The Department's proposed NPRM did not make a distinction by project type (
The Department operates two experimental contracting pilot programs under FHWA and FTA's existing authorities: (i) Innovative Contracting (Local Labor Hire) (80 FR 12257) and (ii) FHWA HUD Livability Local Hire Initiative (75 FR 36467). The Local Labor Hire pilot is conducted under 23 U.S.C. 502 (
Under SEP-14 and 49 U.S.C. 5312, 5314 and 5325, the Department has the flexibility to experiment with innovative approaches to highway and transit contracting. However, the Department is discontinuing these two pilot programs because of minimal interest from intended participants and the difficulty in evaluating cost effectiveness based upon objective criteria.
For additional background, 23 U.S.C. 112 requires a state transportation department to award contracts using federal highway funds by “competitive bidding, unless the State transportation department demonstrates . . . that some other method is more cost effective.” 23 U.S.C. 112(b)(1) (2006). For a bidding process to be “competitive,” the state transportation department must award contracts for projects “only on the basis of the lowest responsive bid submitted by a bidder meeting established criteria of responsibility.”
In 2013, OLC opined that a state or local requirement that has only an incidental effect on the pool of potential bidders or that imposes reasonable requirements related to the performance of the necessary work would not unduly limit competition. However, a requirement that has more than an incidental effect on the pool of potential bidders and does not relate to the work's performance would unduly limit competition unless it promotes the efficient and effective use of federal funds. OLC stated that generally speaking, state or local government requirements that eliminate or disadvantage a class of potential responsible bidders (and thus have a non-trivial effect on the pool of such bidders) to advance objectives unrelated to the efficient use of federal funds or the integrity of the bidding process (or to the performance of the necessary work in a competent and responsible manner) are likely to unduly impede competition in contravention of the substantive component of section 112's competitive bidding requirement. OLC further reaffirmed the view expressed in its 1986 opinion that “the efficient use of federal funds is the touchstone by which the legality of state procurement rules for federally funded highway projects is to be tested,”
The stated purpose of this NPRM was to permit recipients and subrecipients of certain DOT grant program funds to impose geographic-based hiring preferences whenever not otherwise prohibited by Federal law. DOT agrees that the efficient use of federal funds is the touchstone by which the legality of state procurement rules, including any proposed geographic-based hiring preferences, for federally funded projects is to be tested. Here, in light of the responses to the NPRM, the lack of data on whether specific local geographic preferences would have an incidental effect on competition, the long-standing Federal government prohibition in the Common Rule on the use of in-State or local geographic-based preferences, the demonstrated minimal interest from intended participants under the two experimental programs, and the inability to evaluate cost-effectiveness based upon objective criteria under the two experimental programs, the Department has determined that promulgating a regulation that would have deviated from the OMB guidance in the Common Rule, by allowing the use of geographic-based hiring preferences in some of the Department's grant programs, is not practicable for the efficient and cost-effective delivery of projects. The comments received did not include any data that demonstrates that the claimed benefits of the proposed rule justify the costs. The Department has also determined that an additional request for public comment based on the proposed NPRM would not provide the information needed to accomplish the stated purpose.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing and request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking dated May 1, 2017, from David Lochbaum with co-petitioner Paul Gunter, on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists and
Submit comments by December 20, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Jessica Kratchman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5112, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0132 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0132 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The petition was filed by David Lochbaum, on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists and Beyond Nuclear, with one co-petitioner, Paul Gunter of Beyond Nuclear.
On behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists and Beyond Nuclear, David Lochbaum with co-petitioner Paul Gunter request that the NRC amend its regulations to establish acceptable conditions for the use of compensatory measures (
The petitioners state that the NRC's “fire protection regulations were primarily established with the issuance of Appendix R to 10 CFR part 50 in 1980 and the NFPA [National Fire Protection Association] 805 alternative regulations adopted in 2004.” The petitioners are referring to the final rule in 1980 that issued appendix R to part 50 of title 10 of the
(1) NRC Bulletin 1975-004, “Cable Fire at Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Station,” March 25, 1975 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070220189);
(2) Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-0103, “Standard Technical Specifications for Babcock and Wilcox Pressurized Water Reactors,” Revision 0, 1976 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17266A000), Revision 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17266A001); NUREG-0123, “Standard Technical Specifications for General Electric Boiling Water Reactors,” Revision 0, 1976 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17266A007), Revision 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17266A008); NUREG-0212, “Standard Technical Specifications for Combustion Engineering Pressurized Water Reactors,” Revision 0, 1976 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17266A003), Revision 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17266A004); and NUREG-0452, “Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Pressurized Water
(3) Branch Technical Position Auxiliary Power Conversion Systems Branch 9.5-1, “Guidelines for Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants,” May 1, 1976 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070660461), Revision 1, May 13, 1979 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070660450); and Appendix A, “Guidelines for Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants Docketed Prior to July 1, 1976,” August 23, 1976 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15322A269), and February 24, 1977 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070660458);
(4) NUREG-0050, “Recommendations Related to Browns Ferry Fire,” February 1976 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070520452);
(5) NRC Generic Letter 1980-100, “Appendix R to 10 CFR Regarding Fire Protection—Federal Register Notice,” November 24, 1980 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070220242);
(6) NRC Generic Letter 1981-012, “Fire Protection Rule (45 FR 76602, November 19, 1980),” February 20, 1981 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031080537);
(7) NRC Generic Letter 1986-010, “Implementation of Fire Protection Requirements,” April 24, 1986 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031150322);
(8) NRC Generic Letter 1988-012, “Removal of Fire Protection Requirements from Technical Specifications,” August 2, 1988 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031150471);
(9) NRC Information Notice No. 1997-048, “Inadequate or Inappropriate Interim Fire Protection Compensatory Measures,” July 9, 1997 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070180068);
(10) NRC Bulletin 1992-01, “Failure of Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier System to Maintain Cabling in Wide Cable Trays and Small Conduits Free from Fire Damage,” June 24, 1992 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031250239);
(11) NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-007, “Performance of Manual Actions to Satisfy the Requirements of 10 CFR part 50 Appendix R Section III.G.2.,” April 19, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042360547);
(12) NRC Regulatory Guide 1.189, “Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants,” Revision 2, October 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092580550);
(13) NRC Regulatory Guide 1.205, “Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,” Revision 0, May 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061100174); Revision 1, December 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092730314); and
(14) NUREG/CR-7135, “Compensatory and Alternative Regulatory Measures for Nuclear Power Plant Fire Protection (CARMEN-FIRE),” Final Report, August 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15226A446).
The petitioners assert that these guidance documents associated with the current regulations are deficient for three reasons:
(1) They are not regulations and, therefore, convey unenforceable expectations;
(2) They create confusion for licensees, NRC inspectors and reviewers, and the public about what constitutes an acceptable substitute for compliance with fire protection regulations following identification of a deficiency, as well as the permissible durations of the substitutions; and
(3) They were not developed through an open process, so the public did not have opportunities to weigh in on the acceptability of various compensatory measures.
The petitioners assert that a proposed rulemaking would ensure that compensatory measures are used appropriately following a violation in fire protection regulations, and that the rulemaking process would provide the public the opportunity to weigh in on the appropriateness of the use of various compensatory measures before the requirements are adopted as final. The petitioners also assert that a final rule would clear up any current confusion caused by the guidance documents for the NRC's licensees and inspectors and would provide enforceable requirements for the NRC.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of an in-service reliability issue of a latent flow sensor failure combined with single cabin air compressor (CAC) operation. This condition resulted in reduced airflow which led to a persistent single CAC surge condition that caused overheat damage to the CAC inlet. This proposed AD would require installing new pack control unit (PCU) software for the cabin air conditioning and temperature control system (CACTCS) and new CAC outlet pressure sensor J-tube hardware, and doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 20, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Caspar Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6414; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Boeing Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes have two air conditioning packs, one on each side of the airplane. Each pack contains two CACs that function together under normal operating conditions. The Smarter Environmental Control System ensures that airflow is distributed equally across the CACs. If the airflow is low, a single operating CAC on a pack can be driven into an undetected surge. We have received a report of an in-service reliability issue involving a latent flow sensor failure combined with single CAC operation, which resulted in reduced airflow and a persistent single CAC surge condition. During the surge, the temperature exceeded the 450-degree Fahrenheit maximum allowable temperature and generated enough heat energy to degrade the structural integrity of the CAC inlet. The PCU software logic was only designed to detect the surge when both CACs were operating on the same pack, and therefore, it was unable to detect a persistent single CAC surge condition which led to CAC inlet overheating. This overheating condition resulted in structural degradation of the CAC inlet, fumes in the cabin and flight deck, and interruption to in-service air conditioning.
In addition, we received a report of an in-service event involving foreign object debris in the CAC inlet and accumulation at the ozone converter that also led to a persistent single CAC surge resulting in overheat damage to the CAC inlet housing. The proposed PCU software change would redistribute the airflow to provide more flow to a single CAC, reducing the potential for a CAC surge. Reduced airflow leading to persistent CAC surge conditions and CAC inlet overheating, if not corrected, could result in structural degradation of the CAC inlet, and fumes in the cabin and flight deck, as well as causing interruption to in-service air conditioning.
We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB210075-00, Issue 003, dated March 29, 2017; and Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB210077-00, Issue 003, dated October 20, 2016. The service information describes procedures for installing new PCU software for the CACTCS and new CAC outlet pressure sensor J-tube hardware, and doing related investigative and corrective actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. Related investigative actions are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 62 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by November 20, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB210075-00, Issue 003, dated March 29, 2017 (for Model 787-8 airplanes).
(2) Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB210077-00, Issue 003, dated October 20, 2016 (for Model 787-9 airplanes).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air conditioning.
This AD was prompted by a report of an in-service reliability issue involving a latent flow sensor failure combined with single cabin air compressor (CAC) operation. This condition resulted in reduced airflow which led to a persistent single CAC surge condition that caused overheat damage to the CAC inlet. We are issuing this AD to prevent CAC inlet overheating leading to structural degradation of the CAC inlet, fumes in the cabin and flight deck, and interruption to in-service air conditioning.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD: Install new pack control unit software for the cabin air conditioning and temperature control system and new CAC outlet pressure sensor J-tube hardware, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. Related investigative and corrective actions must be done before further flight.
(1) For Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes: Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB210075-00, Issue 003, dated March 29, 2017.
(2) For Boeing Model 787-9 airplanes: Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB210077-00, Issue 003, dated October 20, 2016.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB210075-00, Issue 002, dated May 11, 2016 (for Model 787-8 airplanes).
(2) Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB210077-00, Issue 002, dated May 11, 2016 (for Model 787-9 airplanes).
(1) The Manager, Seattle 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 certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed 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.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Caspar Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6414; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-01-02, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; and Model 757-200, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2013-01-02 requires replacing the control switches of certain cargo doors. Since we issued AD 2013-01-02, additional un-commanded cargo door operation has been reported. This proposed AD would require replacement of certain cargo door control switches with a new improved switch; installation of an arm switch in certain cargo doors; operational and functional tests; and applicable on-condition actions. This proposed AD would also add airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 20, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Caspar Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6414; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On January 4, 2013, we issued AD 2013-01-02, Amendment 39-17316 (78 FR 4051, January 18, 2013) (“AD 2013-01-02”), for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; and Model 757-200, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2013-01-02 requires replacing the control switches of the forward, aft, and nose cargo doors of Model 747 airplanes; and replacing the control switches of cargo doors 1 and 2 of Model 757 series airplanes. AD 2013-01-02 resulted from reports of problems associated with the uncommanded operation of cargo doors. We issued AD 2013-01-02 to prevent injuries to persons and damage to the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2013-01-02, additional un-commanded cargo door operation has been reported. In the most recent report the switch had only been installed for 44 months. Testing of failed switches found that the cargo door control switch can remain actuated after released to the OFF position. We have determined that the replacements required by AD 2013-01-02 do not adequately address the identified unsafe condition and that new improved switches must be installed. With a new cargo door control and arm switch configuration installed, the operator must manually move both switches to operate the cargo door. Both switches are spring loaded to the off position and releasing either switch will stop the door operation.
We have also determined that certain Model 757-200CB series airplanes and Model 747-8F and 747-8 series airplanes are affected by the identified unsafe condition and must be included in this proposed AD.
We reviewed the following Boeing service information.
• Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017, and Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June 5, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacement of the nose, forward, and aft cargo door control switches with new improved switches, installation of an arm switch in the forward and aft cargo doors, a nose cargo door normal operational test, forward and aft cargo door open and close functional tests, and applicable on-condition actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.
• Boeing Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacement of the forward and aft cargo door control
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 2013-01-02. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017; Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June 5, 2017; and Boeing Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017; as applicable; except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. This proposed AD also would add airplanes to the applicability.
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
The effectivity of Boeing Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017, is limited to Model 757-200, -200CB, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes, line numbers 1 through 1050. However, the applicability of this proposed AD includes four additional Model 757 airplanes, variable numbers NP901 through NP904 inclusive. We have included this difference because of new findings related to these additional airplanes indicating they are subject to the identified unsafe condition. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing. Additionally, Boeing has indicated that Boeing Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017, will be revised to include the additional airplanes. We will consider including the revised service information, if available, in the final rule.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 584 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed 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 available 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 proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by November 20, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2013-01-02, Amendment 39-17316 (78 FR 4051, January 18, 2013) (“AD 2013-01-02”).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD.
(1) Model 747-8F and 747-8 series airplanes as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017.
(2) Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June 5, 2017.
(3) Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017.
(4) Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, variable numbers NP901 through NP904 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by reports of un-commanded cargo door operation. We are issuing this AD to prevent failures of the cargo door control switch from allowing un-commanded movement of the cargo door, which if not corrected, could lead to injuries to persons and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017.
(2) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June 5, 2017: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June 5, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as RC in, and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June 5, 2017.
(3) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as RC in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017.
(4) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(4) of this AD: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the nose, forward, and aft cargo door control switches, as applicable, with new improved switches, install an arm switch in the forward and aft cargo doors, do operational and functional tests, and do applicable on-condition actions, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA.
Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2307, dated May 23, 2017; Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2308, dated June 5, 2017; and Boeing Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, Revision 1, dated April 21, 2017; specify a compliance time after “the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 757-52-0093, dated May 5, 2016.
(1) The Manager, Seattle 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 certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed 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.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Caspar Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6414; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300 and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that fatigue cracks were found in the lower wing skin of an airplane with winglets installed. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of the lower wing skin, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 20, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 South 102nd Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; phone: 1-206-830-7699; fax: 1-206-767-3355; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Lu Lu, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6478; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received a report indicating that fatigue cracks were found in the lower wing skin at the farthest outboard fastener of stringer L-5 between wing station (WSTA) 479 and WSTA 505 on a Model 737-300 airplane with Aviation Partners Boeing blended winglet kit installed per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE. If not corrected, fatigue cracking of the lower wing skin common to the runout of stringer L-5 on Boeing Model 737-300 and 737-500 airplanes with winglets installed could grow and result in loss of the structural integrity of the wing, and reduced, or complete loss of, controllability of the airplane.
We reviewed Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737C-57-002, dated April 5, 2017. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections for cracking of the lower wing skin, and on-condition actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737C-57-002, dated April 5, 2017, specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but this proposed AD would require using repair methods, modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 93 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by November 20, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300 and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, with blended winglet kits installed in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that fatigue cracks were found in the lower wing skin at stringer L-5 of a Boeing Model 737-300 airplane with winglets installed. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the lower wing skin common to the runout of stringer L-5, which could grow and result in loss of structural integrity of the wing, and consequent reduced, or complete loss of, controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the lower wing skin external surface at the stringer L-5 location on the left and right wings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737C-57-002, dated April 5, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles or 9,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Although Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737C-57-002, dated April 5, 2017, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair as specified in this paragraph.
(1) The Manager, Seattle 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 certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed 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.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Lu Lu, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6478; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 South 102nd Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; phone: 1-206-830-7699; fax: 1-206-767-3355; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2012-03-11 that applies to all Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines. AD 2012-03-11 requires checking the transmissible torque between the low-pressure (LP) pump impeller and the high-pressure (HP) pump shaft on the HP/LP pump and metering valve assembly, hereafter referred to as the hydro-mechanical metering unit (HMU). Since we issued AD 2012-03-11, the manufacturer determined that incorporating Modification TU 178 is a more effective method to reduce the risk of uncoupling between the LP fuel pump impeller and the HP fuel pump shaft than the prior Modification TU 147. This proposed AD would require inspection and possible replacement of the HMU. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 20, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: (33) 05 59 74 40 00; fax: (33) 05 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the 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. It is also available on the Internet at
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 proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2012-03-11, Amendment 39-16953 (77 FR 8092, February 14, 2012), “AD 2012-03-11,” for all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines. AD 2012-03-11 requires checking the transmissible torque between the LP pump impeller and the HP pump shaft on the pre- and post-Modification TU 147 HMUs. AD 2012-03-11 resulted from instances of uncoupling between the LP fuel pump impeller and the HP fuel pump shaft. We issued AD 2012-03-11 to prevent an uncommanded in-flight shutdown, which can result in a forced autorotation landing or accident.
Since we issued AD 2012-03-11, the manufacturer determined that modification of an engine to incorporate Modification TU 178 is a more effective method to reduce the risk of uncoupling between the LP fuel pump impeller and the HP fuel pump shaft than the prior Modification TU 147. Also since we issued AD 2012-03-11, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has issued AD 2017-0102, dated June 13, 2017, which requires inspection and possible replacement of the HMU.
Turbomeca, S.A., has issued Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) A292 73 2830, Version B, dated July 10, 2009, and Alert MSB A292 73 2836, Version A, dated August 17, 2010. Turbomeca Alert MSB A292 73 2830, Version B, is used to do the inspection for pre-Modification TU 147 HMUs. Turbomeca Alert MSB A292 73 2836, Version A, is used to do the inspection for HMUs that have incorporated Modification TU 147. 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
Safran Helicopter Engines has issued MSB 292 73 2178, Version B, dated March 23, 2017, introducing an HMU with a reinforced drive link between the LP impeller and fuel pump drive shaft (Modification TU 178). Safran Helicopter Engines has also issued MSB A292 73 2830, Version C; and A292 73 2836, Version B, both dated April 5, 2017, which exempt HMUs incorporating Modification TU 178 from the inspections previously recommended by Turbomeca.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require inspection and, depending on the results of the inspection, possible replacement of the HMU. This proposed AD would further require replacement of pre-Modification TU 178 HMUs with an HMU incorporating Modification TU 178 within 2,200 engine flight hours or 72 months, whichever occurs later, after the effective date of this AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 417 engines installed on helicopters 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 have 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 that the 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 November 20, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2012-03-11, Amendment 39-16953 (77 FR 8092, February 14, 2012).
This AD applies to Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines, except those incorporating Modification TU 178.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7300, Engine Fuel and Control.
This AD was prompted by analysis that indicated the modification of an engine to incorporate Modification TU 178 provides a
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Check the transmissible torque between the LP fuel pump impeller and the HP fuel pump shaft as follows:
(i) For pre-Modification TU 147 HMUs, check the torque before accumulating 500 engine flight hours (FHs) since March 11, 2010 or before the next flight, whichever occurs later. Use Paragraph 2 of Turbomeca Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) A292 73 2830, Version B, dated July 10, 2009 to do the check.
(ii) For HMUs that incorporated Modification TU 147 on or before March 31, 2010, and those HMUs not listed in Figures 2 or 3 of Turbomeca Alert MSB A292 73 2836, Version A, dated August 17, 2010, check the torque before the next flight. Use Paragraph 2 of Turbomeca Alert MSB A292 73 2836, Version A, to do the check.
(2) If the HMU does not pass the torque check, replace the HMU with a post-Modification TU 178 HMU before the next flight.
Within 2,200 engine FHs or 72 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace any pre-Modification TU 178 HMU with a post-Modification TU 178 configuration HMU.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install a pre-Modification TU 178 HMU on engines incorporating a post-Modification TU 178 HMU.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, may 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. 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 2017-0102, dated June 13, 2017, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: (33) 05 59 74 40 00; fax: (33) 05 59 74 45 15. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-03-07, which applies to certain Airbus Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -231 series airplanes. AD 2004-03-07 requires repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at frame (FR) 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane; and repair as necessary. Since we issued AD 2004-03-07, additional cracking has been found under the longitudinal beams in locations outside of the inspection areas required by AD 2004-03-07. This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2004-03-07, expand the applicability, and require an inspection of the fastener holes on the pressure panel between FR 35 and FR 36 under the longitudinal beam and modification or repair as applicable. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 20, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On January 29, 2004, we issued AD 2004-03-07, Amendment 39-13451 (69 FR 5907, February 9, 2004) (“AD 2004-03-07”), for certain Airbus Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -231 series airplanes. AD 2004-03-07 was prompted by fatigue tests which revealed cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at FR 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane. Investigation revealed that the damage was caused by high loads in this area. AD 2004-03-07 requires repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at FR 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane; and repair as necessary. AD 2004-03-07 also provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We issued AD 2004-03-07 to detect and correct fatigue cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at the FR 36 adjacent to the longitudinal beams, which could result in reduced structural integrity and possible rapid decompression of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2004-03-07, additional cracks have been found under the longitudinal beams at locations that are not included in the inspection area required by AD 2004-03-07. Fatigue and damage tolerance analyses were performed and the results indicated that all the holes in the pressure panel above the longitudinal beams have to be cold worked.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0206, dated October 13, 2016; corrected October 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318 and Model A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During fatigue tests, cracks were found around the fasteners connecting the pressure panel with the flexible bracket at fuselage frame (FR) 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could impair the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
To address this unsafe condition, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued [French] AD 2000-531-155(B) [which corresponds with FAA AD 2004-03-07] to require repetitive inspections of the longitudinal beams of the FR 36 pressure panel and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of a repair.
Since that [French] AD was issued, additional cracks have been found under the beams, but in locations not covered by the required inspections. Fatigue and damage tolerance analyses were performed, the results of which indicated that all the holes in the pressure panel above all the longitudinal beams have to be cold worked.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 2000-531-155(B), which is superseded, extends the applicability to all A320 family aeroplanes and requires [a special detailed inspection of the fastener holes on the pressure panel between FR35 and FR36 under the longitudinal beam and] modification [or repair] of all the affected holes.
This [EASA] AD is republished to correct the number of the superseded DGAC AD.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2016. The service information describes procedures for a special detailed inspection (rotating probe) for cracking of the fastener holes on the pressure panel between FR 35 and FR 36 under the longitudinal beam and repair of any crack.
Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016, which describes procedures for modifying the pressure panel above the left and right longitudinal beams, including related investigative action (
In addition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016, which describes procedures for modifying the pressure panel above the left and right longitudinal beams, including related investigative actions (
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
The MCAI specifies that operators can calculate revised thresholds for Model A319 and A320 series airplanes with sharklets installed (Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1193). This proposed AD does not include those calculations because the calculations could result in different inspection thresholds for each individual airplane. However, under the provisions of paragraph (o)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of alternative compliance times.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 737 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary modifications that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these modifications:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition repairs specified in the service information.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this NPRM is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this NPRM has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this NPRM is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by November 20, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2004-03-07, Amendment 39-13451 (69 FR 5907, February 9, 2004) (“AD 2004-03-07”).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, except for airplanes on which Airbus Modification 151574 was embodied in production.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by fatigue tests which revealed cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at frame (FR) 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at the FR 36 adjacent to the longitudinal beams, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD 2004-03-07, with no changes.
(1) For Model A320-211, -212, and -231 series airplanes having serial numbers 0002 through 0107 inclusive, except those airplanes on which Airbus Modification 21202/K1432 has been incorporated in production, or on which Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, dated April 29, 2002, has been incorporated: Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total flight cycles, do a rotating probe inspection on airplanes with a center fuel tank, or a detailed inspection on airplanes without a center fuel tank, to detect cracking around the fasteners that attach the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at FR 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030, Revision 01, dated May 21, 2002.
(2) If no crack is detected by the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, repeat the applicable inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles for airplanes without a center fuel tank, and at intervals not to exceed 18,000 flight cycles for airplanes with a center fuel tank.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of AD 2004-03-07, with specific delegation approval language.
(1) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair the affected structure by accomplishing all applicable actions in accordance with paragraphs 3.B. through 3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030, Revision 01, dated May 21, 2002. Repeat the applicable inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles for airplanes without a center fuel tank, and at intervals not to exceed 18,000 flight cycles for airplanes with a center fuel tank. For any area where cracking is repaired, the repair constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection of that area.
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030 references Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, dated April 29, 2002, as an additional source of service information for certain repairs.
(2) If Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030, Revision 01, dated May 21, 2002, specifies to contact the manufacturer for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o)(2) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (e) of AD 2004-03-07, with revised compliance language. For Model A320-211, -212, and -231 series airplanes having serial numbers 0002 through 0107 inclusive, except those airplanes on which Airbus Modification 21202/K1432 has been incorporated in production, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, dated April 29, 2002: Modification, before the effective date of this AD, of the structure around the fasteners that attach the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at FR 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane, by accomplishing all applicable actions in accordance with paragraphs 3.A. through 3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, dated April 29, 2002, constitutes terminating action for the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
For all airplanes, except for airplanes identified in paragraph (l) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in table 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD, do a special detailed inspection for cracking of the fastener holes on the pressure panel between FR 35 and FR 36 under the longitudinal beam, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2016.
(1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no cracking is found, or cracking is found that is within the limits specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2016: Before further flight, modify the pressure panel above the left and right longitudinal beams, including doing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016; or Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016; as applicable. Do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016; and Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016; specify to contact Airbus for appropriate action: Before further flight, accomplish the repair in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o)(2) of this AD.
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, any cracking is found that exceeds the limits specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2016: Do the actions specified in, and at the compliance times specified in, paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (k)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before further flight, repair any cracking in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2016. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2016, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, request approval of repair instructions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o)(2) of this AD, and accomplish the repair accordingly within the compliance time specified in those instructions. If no compliance time is defined in the repair instructions, accomplish the repair before further flight.
(ii) At the times specified in paragraph (k)(2)(ii)(A) or (k)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD, as applicable: Report any findings of cracking that exceeds the limits specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2016, to Airbus Customer Services through TechRequest on Airbus World (
(A) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Report within 90 days after that inspection.
(B) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Report within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
For Model A319 and Model A320 series airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1193 have been embodied and the airplane has accumulated 33,000 flight cycles or 66,000 flight hours or more since the airplane's first flight on the effective date of this AD: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA for approved repair instructions and within the compliance time specified in those instructions, accomplish the repair accordingly. If no compliance time is defined in the repair instructions, accomplish the repair before the next flight.
(1) Modification of an airplane as specified in paragraph (m)(1)(i), (m)(1)(ii), or (m)(1)(iii) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD for that airplane only.
(i) Modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
(ii) Modification of an airplane prior to the effective date of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, dated March 19, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, dated March 19, 2015; as applicable.
(iii) Modification of an airplane using instructions obtained in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o)(2) of this AD.
(2) Repair of an airplane as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD for that airplane, unless specified otherwise in the repair instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before March 15, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-03-07) using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030, dated January 5, 2000; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, dated January 5, 2000.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, dated March 19, 2015.
(3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, dated March 19, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, dated March 19, 2015; for that airplane only.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0206, dated October 13, 2016; corrected October 14, 2016; for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Proposed policy and request for comment.
As new technology facilitates the introduction of area navigation (RNAV) instrument approach procedures over the past decade, the number of procedures available in the National Airspace System has nearly doubled. The complexity and cost to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of maintaining the instrument flight procedures inventory while expanding the new RNAV capability is not sustainable. The FAA is considering the cancellation of certain circling procedures (to include circling-only instrument approach procedures (IAPs) and circling minima charted on straight-in IAPs). The FAA proposes specific criteria to guide the identification and selection of appropriate circling procedures that can be considered for cancellation. The circling procedures associated with this cancellation initiative would be selected from the criteria outlined below. This document is not a part of the FAA's VOR minimum operating network (MON) initiative.
Comments must be received on or before November 6, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0879 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Lonnie Everhart, Aeronautical Information Services AJV-5, Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, 6500 S. MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, OK 73169; Telephone (405) 954-4576; Email
Under 49 U.S.C. 40103(a), the Administrator has broad authority to regulate the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. The Administrator is also authorized to issue air traffic rules and regulations to govern the flight, navigation, protection, and identification of aircraft for the protections of persons and property on the ground and for the efficient use of the navigable airspace. 49 U.S.C. 40103(b). Under Section 44701(a)(5), the Administrator promotes safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. This action is within the scope of that authority.
IAPs are promulgated by rulemaking procedures and are incorporated by reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 into Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations; Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), Subpart C—TERPS Procedures.
The National Airspace System (NAS) is currently in transition to a “NextGen NAS”. During this transition, the FAA is managing the technology and procedures to support both the Legacy NAS as well as the NextGen NAS. Managing two versions of the NAS requires excess manpower, infrastructure, and information management which is costly and unsupportable in the longterm. To mitigate these costs, the FAA has a number of efforts underway to effectively transition from the legacy to the NextGen NAS. One area of focus for this transition is instrument flight procedures (IFPs). The FAA seeks to ensure an effective transition from ground-based IFPs to greater availability and use of satellite-based IFPs while maintaining NAS safety.
In early 2015, the FAA requested the RTCA's Tactical Operations Committee (TOC) with providing feedback and recommendations on criteria and processes for cancelling instrument flight procedures. Among the many recommendations provided by the TOC were criteria on how to identify circling procedures that would qualify as candidates for cancellation. As of the beginning of 2017, there are approximately 12,000 IAPs in publication, and there were nearly 10,600 circling lines of minima. Circling procedures account for approximately one-third of all lines of minima in the NAS.
In its continued effort to right-size the NAS through optimization and elimination of redundant and unnecessary IAPs, the FAA proposes the following criteria to guide the identification and selection of appropriate circling procedures to be considered for cancellation.
It should be noted that National Procedures Assessment (NPA) Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP) cancellation activities and associated criteria do not supersede similar activities being performed under the
All circling procedures will continue to be reviewed through the established IAP periodic review process.
The following questions are applicable only to circling-only procedures:
Further consideration for cancellation under this policy would be terminated if any of the aforementioned questions are answered in the affirmative. If all questions are answered in the negative, the procedure would be processed as described in the following paragraph.
When a candidate has been identified, Aeronautical Information Services would send a notification of procedure cancellation memorandum and completed checklist to the appropriate Regional Service Area, Operations Support Group.
The FAA invites interested parties to submit written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from implementation of the proposed policy. Comments should explain the reason for modifying or not implementing this proposed policy. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments or, if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
The FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments before acting on proposed policy. The FAA will consider comments submitted after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
Bureau of the Census, Commerce Department.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is seeking public comments to perform a review of the requirements governing routed export transactions. In particular, the Census Bureau is interested in comments regarding the definition of a routed export transaction as well as the responsibilities of parties in routed export transactions. Routed export transactions are transactions in which the Foreign Principal Party in Interest (FPPI) controls the movement of the goods out of the country. There are a variety of reasons why the FPPI assumes this responsibility such as the use of a preferred carrier and the desire to not disclose the ultimate consignee to the U.S. Principal Party in Interest (USPPI), although the ultimate consignee is properly identified to the U.S. Government. Because the FPPI controls the movement of the goods in a routed transaction and cannot file Electronic Export Information (EEI), the Census Bureau requires the FPPI to authorize a U.S. authorized agent or the USPPI to file the EEI on its behalf. This ensures that the Census Bureau collects the statistical information.
Written comments must be received on or before December 5, 2017.
Please direct all written comments on this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to the Chief, International Trade Management Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 5K158, Washington, DC 20233-6010. You may also submit comments, identified by RIN number 0607-AA56, to the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
Dale C. Kelly, Chief, International Trade Management Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 5K158, Washington, DC 20233-6010, by phone (301) 763-6937, by fax (301) 763-8835, or by email
The Census Bureau is responsible for collecting, compiling, and publishing export trade statistics for the United States under the provisions of Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 9, Section 301. The Automated Export System (AES), now part of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), is the primary instrument used for collecting export trade data. Through the AES, the Census Bureau collects Electronic Export Information (EEI), the electronic equivalent of the export data formerly collected on the Shipper's Export Declaration (SED), reported pursuant to the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR), Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 30. The EEI consists of data elements as set forth in 15 CFR 30.6 for an export shipment, and includes information such as the U.S. Principal Party in Interest's (USPPI's) name, address, and identification number, and detailed information concerning the exported product. The party responsible for the accuracy and timeliness of EEI data elements varies depending upon the type of export transaction; standard or routed. Through this notice, the Census Bureau is seeking public comments to perform a review of the requirements governing routed export transactions, a subset of export transactions, as detailed in the FTR, 15 CFR, part 30.
The Census Bureau is soliciting comments on the clarity, usability, and any other matters related to the regulatory requirements for routed transactions. This will include the definition of a routed export transaction found in 15 CFR 30.1 as well as the general responsibilities of parties in routed export transactions as detailed in 15 CFR 30.3. Suggested questions are below; however, any pertinent feedback not captured by these questions is also welcome:
1. If you do not think that the definition of a routed export transaction in 15 CFR 30.1 is clearly stated, then what definition of routed export transaction would you suggest?
2. Should the Census Bureau modify the list of data elements at 15 CFR 30.3(e)(2) that the U.S. authorized agent is required to provide when filing the electronic export information? If so, what changes would you suggest?
3. Should the Census Bureau modify the list of data elements at 15 CFR 30.3(e)(1) that the U.S. Principal Party in Interest is required to provide to the U.S. Authorized agent? If so, what changes would you suggest?
4. The carrier's responsibilities under the FTR are the same in both standard and routed transactions. Does the FTR clearly communicate these responsibilities? If not, what clarification would you suggest?
5. The data elements that the USPPI and U.S authorized agent are required to provide are currently located in Section 30.3(e) of the FTR. However, additional data elements are needed to complete the AES filing. Below is a list of data elements that are required to be reported but for which a responsible party is not listed. Please provide comments on which party, the USPPI or the U.S. authorized agent, should report these data elements.
6. Are the responsibilities of parties in a routed export transaction clearly stated? If not, what improvements would you suggest?
7. How could we improve the process to authorize filing in a routed export transaction?
8. How could the FTR be revised to align with the Bureau of Industry and Security's Export Administration Regulations on routed export transactions?
9. What changes would you suggest in Section 30.3 of the FTR that might improve the parties' understanding of the requirements of a routed export transaction?
10. What changes would you suggest in Section 30.3 of the FTR that might improve the parties' understanding of their roles in a routed or standard export transaction?
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Petition for rulemaking.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) has received a petition requesting that the Commission initiate rulemaking under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) to adopt a safety standard for high-powered magnet sets. The Commission invites written comments concerning the petition.
Submit comments by December 5, 2017.
Submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2017-0037, by any of the following methods:
Rocky Hammond, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301-504-6833; email:
On August 17, 2017, Zen Magnets, LLC (petitioner) submitted a petition requesting that the Commission initiate rulemaking to adopt a safety standard for high-powered magnet sets under Sections 7 and 9 of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058) to address the hazard associated with these products if ingested, aspirated, or otherwise inserted into the body.
The petitioner describes the product as small rare earth magnets of various shapes, sizes, and flux indices (
The petitioner asserts that high-powered magnet sets pose a risk of injury if misused in a way that results in ingesting, aspirating, or otherwise inserting more than one magnet into the body. The petitioner notes that one potential injury that can result from ingesting high-powered magnets is damage to gastrointestinal tissue.
The petitioner requests that CPSC promulgate a mandatory safety standard that includes the following:
•
•
•
•
The Commission seeks comments concerning this petition.
The petition is available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from the State of Missouri for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Section 110 of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Comments must be received by November 6, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0356, to
Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at
This document proposes to take action on the State of Missouri Infrastructure SIP revision for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. We have published a direct final rule approving the State's SIP revision (s) in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Volatile organic carbon, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from the State of Missouri for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO
Comments must be received by November 6, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0515, to
Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at
This document proposes to take action on the State of Missouri Infrastructure SIP revision for the 2010 SO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for New Jersey's enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. New Jersey has made several amendments to its I/M program to improve performance of the program and has requested that the SIP be revised to include these changes. Chief among the amendments the EPA is proposing to approve is New Jersey's amendment to its I/M program to discontinue two-speed idle tests on model year 1981-1995 light duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on pre-1981 model year light duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on heavy duty gasoline vehicles and gas cap leak testing. In addition, heavy duty gasoline vehicles equipped with on-board diagnostics (OBD) will be subject to OBD testing with this revision. The EPA is proposing approval of this SIP revision because it meets all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's regulations and because the revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards in the affected area. The intended effect of this action is to maintain consistency between the State-adopted rules and the federally approved SIP.
Comments must be received on or before November 6, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0101, at
Reema Loutan, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3760, or by email at
The EPA is proposing to approve a revision, submitted by New Jersey on September 16, 2016, to the New Jersey State Implementation Plan (SIP) pertaining to New Jersey's motor vehicle enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. New Jersey provided the EPA with documentation on the emission impacts that will result from changes to New Jersey's enhanced I/M program including a comparison to the EPA I/M performance standard. The revisions submitted by New Jersey include discontinuing the two-speed idle tests on model year 1981-1995 light duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on pre-1981 model year light duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on heavy duty gasoline vehicles and gas cap leak testing; requiring OBD testing for heavy duty gasoline vehicles equipped with on-board diagnostics (OBD); requiring inspections for commercial vehicles; and requiring that re-inspections of all vehicles be performed at New Jersey's decentralized I/M facilities.
What are the Clean Air Act requirements for a moderate 8-hr ozone nonattainment area?
In 1997, the EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period. The EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was set. The EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more protective of human health, especially with regard to children and adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), the EPA finalized its attainment/nonattainment designations for areas across the country, including the State of New Jersey, with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June 15, 2004. Then on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), the EPA revised the level of the 8-hour primary, health-based standard to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm), to provide increased protection for children and other “at risk” populations against an array of ozone-related adverse health effects such as decreased lung function and increased respiratory symptoms.
The New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area is composed of the following counties: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren. The New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, Atlantic City, PA-DE-MD-NJ nonattainment area is composed of the following counties: Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean and Salem. All of these counties in both areas were classified as moderate or above ozone nonattainment areas under the previous 1-hour ozone standard. These designations triggered the requirements under section 182(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for moderate and above nonattainment areas, including a requirement to submit an enhanced motor vehicle I/M program.
CAA section 181(b)(2) requires the EPA Administrator to determine, based on an area's design value (which represents air quality in the area for the most recent 3-year period) as of an area's attainment deadline, whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone standard by that date. The statute provides a mechanism by which states that meet certain criteria may request and be granted by the EPA Administrator a 1-year extension of an area's attainment deadline. The CAA also requires that areas that have not attained the standard by their attainment deadlines be reclassified to either the next “highest” classification (
Under the original designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in July 2012, New Jersey was classified as marginal. However, New Jersey failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable marginal attainment deadline of July 20, 2015. Therefore, on May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697), the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT was reclassified from marginal to moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, with a new 2008 ozone NAAQS attainment date of July 20, 2018. In that same action, the EPA determined that the Philadelphia Area and Southern New Jersey qualified for a 1-year extension of its attainment date, as provided in section 181(a)(5) of the CAA and interpreted by regulation at 40 CFR 51.1107, and granted the requested extension. The EPA established the new attainment date for the Philadelphia Area as July 20, 2016, to be based on ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2013-2015 monitoring period.
Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the requirements of CAA section 110(l) to be approved by the EPA. Section 110(l) states:
The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.
The EPA interprets section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of the CAA and to all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment, unclassifiable, or maintenance, for one or more of the six criteria pollutants. The EPA also interprets section 110(l) to require a demonstration addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. In the absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no interference with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under section 110(l), the EPA believes it is appropriate to allow states to substitute equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a SIP approved program, as long as actual emissions in the air are not increased. “Equivalent” emissions reductions mean reductions which are equal to or greater than those reductions achieved by the control measure approved in the active portion of the SIP. In order to show that compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, modeling or adequate justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent reductions must represent actual, new emissions reductions achieved in a contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing SIP control measure, in order to preserve the status quo level of emission in the air. In addition to being contemporaneous, the equivalent emissions reductions must also be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus to be approved into the SIP. See Section V for information on the state's 110(l) demonstration and I/M program benefits.
The CAA requires certain states to implement an enhanced I/M program to detect gasoline-fueled motor vehicles that exhibit excessive emissions of certain air pollutants. The enhanced I/M program is intended to help states meet federal health-based NAAQS for ozone and carbon monoxide by requiring vehicles with excess emissions to have their emissions control systems repaired. Section 182 of the CAA requires I/M programs in those areas of the nation that are most impacted by carbon monoxide and ozone pollution.
On April 5, 2001, the EPA published in the
The OBD system monitors the status of up to 11 emission control related subsystems by performing either continuous or periodic functional tests of specific components and vehicle conditions. The first three testing categories—misfire, fuel trim, and comprehensive components—are continuous, while the remaining eight only run after a certain set of conditions has been met. The algorithms for running these eight periodic monitors are unique to each manufacturer and involve such things as ambient temperature as well as driving conditions. Most vehicles will have at least five of the eight remaining monitors (catalyst, evaporative system, oxygen sensor, heated oxygen sensor, and exhaust gas recirculation or EGR system) while the remaining three (air conditioning, secondary air, and heated catalyst) are not necessarily applicable to all vehicles. When a vehicle is scanned at an OBD-I/M test site, these monitors can appear as either “ready” (meaning the monitor in question has been evaluated), “not ready” (meaning the monitor has not yet been evaluated), or “not applicable” (meaning the vehicle is not equipped with the component monitor in question).
The OBD system is also designed to fully evaluate the vehicle emissions control system. If the OBD system detects a problem that may cause vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times the Federal Test Procedure standards, then the Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) or Check Engine Light, is illuminated. By turning on the MIL, the OBD system notifies the vehicle operator that an emission-related fault has been detected, and the vehicle should be repaired as soon as possible, thus reducing the harmful emissions contributed by that vehicle.
The EPA's revised OBD I/M rule applies to only those areas that are required to implement I/M programs under the CAA, which includes the aforementioned counties in New Jersey. This rule established a deadline of January 1, 2002 for states to begin performing OBD checks on 1996 and newer model OBD-equipped vehicles and to require repairs to be performed on those vehicles with malfunctions identified by the OBD check.
New Jersey is required to have an enhanced I/M program pursuant to the CAA, and consequently has adopted, and has been implementing an enhanced I/M program statewide since December 13, 1999. On January 22, 2002, (67 FR 2811), the EPA fully approved New Jersey's enhanced I/M program and the State's performance standard modeling as meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA. Additional information on the EPA's final approval of New Jersey's enhanced I/M program can be found in the EPA's January 22, 2002, final approval notice.
On September 16, 2016, New Jersey submitted a revision to the State of New Jersey's I/M program SIP. The submittal consists of new rules and rule amendments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-14, 7:27-15, 7:27A-3, 7:27B-4, 7:27B-5 and the Motor Vehicle Commission rules at N.J.A.C. 13:20-7.1 through 7.6, 13:20-
The changes to New Jersey's I/M program include the elimination of exhaust emission tests or tailpipe testing for all gasoline motor vehicles. OBD testing will be required for all vehicles, including heavy duty gasoline vehicles, subject to inspection and required by the EPA to be equipped with an OBD system. The two-speed idle tests on model year 1981-1995 light duty gasoline vehicles, idle tests on pre-1981 model year light duty gasoline vehicles and idle tests on heavy duty gasoline vehicles will be discontinued.
The changes to New Jersey's I/M program also include procedures for diesel exhaust after-treatment checks, standards for fuel leak checks and replacement of the fuel cap leak test for gasoline-fueled vehicles with a visual gas cap check to ensure that the gas cap is present. NJ also submitted amendments to rules related to inspection requirements and inspection procedures. For heavy-duty diesel powered vehicles, New Jersey is repealing the rolling acceleration smoke opacity test, and the power brake smoke opacity test, and retaining only the snap acceleration smoke opacity test.
Enforcement related amendments include authorizing inspectors of both gasoline-fueled and diesel-powered motor vehicles to fail a vehicle if it is determined that there has been tampering with the vehicle's emission controls. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection may also impose penalties for tampering with emission controls on diesel vehicles. The New Jersey Diesel Emission Inspection Center inspection forms will be replaced with daily electronic reporting of diesel inspections, and private inspection facilities will submit diesel inspection information through an electronic portal or workstation.
New Jersey provided documentation on the emission impacts that will result from proposed changes to New Jersey's I/M program, including a comparison to the EPA I/M performance standard.
As part of its final rule for I/M requirements, the EPA established a “model” program for areas that were required to implement enhanced I/M programs. This model program is termed by the EPA as the “I/M performance standard” and is defined by a specific set of program elements. The purpose of the performance standard is to provide a gauge by which the EPA can evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of each state's enhanced I/M program. As such, states are required to demonstrate that their enhanced I/M programs achieve applicable area-wide emission levels for the pollutants of interest that are equal to, or lower than, those which would be realized by the implementation of the model program.
Originally, the EPA only designed one enhanced performance standard, as specified at 40 CFR 51.351, and required all enhanced I/M program areas to meet or exceed that standard. However, on September 18, 1995, the EPA promulgated the “low” enhanced performance standard. The low enhanced performance standard is a less stringent enhanced I/M performance standard established for those areas that have an approved SIP for Rate of Progress (ROP) for 1996, and do not have a disapproved plan for ROP for the period after 1996 or a disapproved plan for attainment of the air quality standards for ozone or carbon monoxide. New Jersey is currently demonstrating compliance with the CAA requirements for ROP and attainment and can therefore use the “low” enhanced performance standard. The revised performance standard modeling included as part of New Jersey's submittal is designed to show attainment of the low enhanced performance standard.
In accordance with the EPA's final rule for I/M requirements (40 CFR part 51, subpart S), a state must design and implement its enhanced I/M program such that it meets or exceeds a minimum performance standard. The performance standard is expressed as average grams per mile (gpm) or tons per day emission levels from area-wide highway mobile sources as a result of the enhanced I/M program. Areas must meet the performance standard for the pollutants that cause them to be subject to the enhanced I/M requirements. New Jersey was required to implement its enhanced I/M program because of its non-attainment status for two criteria air pollutants, ozone (of which volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
The EPA's final rule on I/M requirements also requires that the equivalency of the emission levels achieved by the state's enhanced I/M program design compared to those of the performance standard must be demonstrated using the most current version of the EPA's mobile source emission model. The model New Jersey utilized in its analysis was MOVES2014, which was the most current version of the EPA's mobile source emission model at the time the SIP revisions were submitted.
Table 1 below compares the Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standards with New Jersey's existing and proposed enhanced I/M programs.
I/M
In order to complete its performance standard and program evaluation modeling, New Jersey used the parameters and assumptions shown previously in Table 1, as well as the assumption and values in Table 2.
Table 3 shows the emissions reduction results from modeling the New Jersey I/M program compared to the EPA low enhanced performance standard. The emissions reductions achieved under New Jersey's new proposed I/M program meet or exceed those achieved under the performance standards.
New Jersey has demonstrated that the changes to their enhanced I/M program will meet the performance standard requirements and will therefore continue to achieve emission reductions necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. Specifically, New Jersey's modeling of the proposed I/M program resulted in
The EPA has reviewed New Jersey's changes to its enhanced I/M program that differ from the previous Federally approved program and has determined that those changes meet relevant performance standards and are therefore approvable into the SIP. The EPA will continue to evaluate New Jersey's enhanced I/M program effectiveness through the annual and biennial reports submitted by New Jersey in accordance with 40 CFR 51.366, “Data Analysis and Reporting.”
For SIP revisions that will or could potentially lead to a change in emissions or ambient concentrations of a pollutant or its precursors, the section 110(l) demonstration should address all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. As indicated in Table 4, the I/M Program Benefits modeling performed by New Jersey and verified by the EPA shows an emissions reduction benefit shortfall of 2 tons per day between New Jersey's existing and new enhanced I/M programs for ozone precursors (VOCs and NO
A summary of the I/M Program benefits modeling results is found in Table 4.
Based on the above discussion and the state's 110(l) demonstration, EPA believes that the changes to the New Jersey's I/M program will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in either the Northern or Southern New Jersey nonattainment areas and would not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and thus, are approvable under CAA section 110(l).
The EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that New Jersey has revised its I/M program in accordance with the requirements of the CAA, 40 CFR part 51 and all of the EPA's technical requirements for an approvable Enhanced I/M program. The EPA is proposing to approve the rules and rule amendments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's rules at N.J.A.C. 7:27-14, 7:27-15, 7:27A-3, 7:27B-4, 7:27B-5 and the Motor Vehicle Commission rules at N.J.A.C. 13:20-7.1 through 7.6, 13:20-26.12 and 26.16, 13:20-32.1 through 32.49, 13:20-33.1 through 33.50, Appendix C, N.J.A.C 13:20-43.1, 43.2 and 43.2A, 43.4 through 43.8, 43.14, 43.16, and N.J.A.C 13:20-44.2, 44.3 and 44.10. The CAA gives states the discretion in program planning to implement programs of the state's choosing as long as necessary emission reductions are met.
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 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
• 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 6-month extension of the final determination of whether to list the Louisiana pinesnake (
The comment period for the proposed rule published October 6, 2016 (81 FR 69454), is reopened. We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before November 6, 2017. If you comment using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
1.
2.
Joseph Ranson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Ecological Services Office, 646 Cajundome Blvd., Suite 400, Lafayette, LA; telephone 337-291-3101. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
On October 6, 2016 (81 FR 69454), we published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 4(b)(6) of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.17(a) require that we take one of three actions within 1 year of a proposed listing and concurrent proposed designation of critical habitat: (1) Finalize the proposed rule; (2) withdraw the proposed rule; or (3) extend the final determination by not more than 6 months, if there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination.
Since the publication of the October 6, 2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 69454), there has been substantial disagreement regarding available information related to the interpretation of the available survey data used to determine the Louisiana pinesnake's status and trends. Specifically, during the public comment period, we received multiple comments on the proposed listing and the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data used to support it. In particular, the comments reflected significant disagreement, including from one of the peer reviewers, regarding the interpretation of the available data used to determine the Louisiana pinesnake's status and trends, including the current conservation status of the Louisiana pinesnake in Louisiana and, particularly, in Texas. Therefore, in consideration of these disagreements, we have determined that a 6-month extension of the final determination for this rulemaking is necessary, and we are hereby extending the final determination for 6 months in order to solicit and consider additional information that will help to clarify these issues and to fully analyze data that are relevant to our final listing determination. With this 6-month extension, we will make a final determination on the proposed rule no later than April 6, 2018.
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed listing rule. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We intend that any final action resulting from the proposal be as accurate as possible and based on the best available scientific and commercial data.
We are particularly interested in new information and comments regarding:
(1) The interpretation of scientific literature in the proposed rulemaking, and whether we overlooked any scientific literature in our analysis. In particular, some commenters expressed concern that there is insufficient scientific information (survey data in particular) to adequately assess the conservation status of the species, while others expressed concern that the available scientific information supports an endangered determination.
(2) Additional survey information, including maps, throughout the Louisiana pinesnake's range, especially for Texas.
(3) Trapping results to determine the Louisiana pinesnake's estimated occupied habitat areas (EOHAs). During the peer review period, peer reviewers were critical of methods used to determine EOHAs and questioned the interpretation that resulted from our analysis.
If you previously submitted comments or information on the October 6, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 69454), please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated previously submitted comments into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning the proposed listing will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.
The New England Fishery Management Council has submitted the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2, incorporating an Environmental Impact Statement, for review by the Secretary of Commerce. NMFS is requesting comments from the public on the Omnibus Amendment, which was developed by the Council to revise the essential fish habitat designations for each Council-managed species, designate Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, revise the system of essential fish habitat management areas, address seasonal groundfish spawning spatial management, establish Dedicated Habitat Research Areas, and identify actions that can be modified by framework and other administrative concerns relating to the Amendment. The intended effect of this action is to ensure the Council's fishery management plans comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act's requirements to routinely review and update essential fish habitat designations and to continue to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on such designated habitat.
Public comments must be received on or before December 5, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0123, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Copies of the Omnibus Amendment, including its Environmental Impact Statement, preliminary Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EIS/RIR/IRFA), are available from the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. The EIS/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at:
Moira Kelly, Senior Fishery Program Specialist, (978) 281-9218; fax: (978) 281-9135,
The Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2 (Omnibus EFH Amendment) was initiated to review and update the essential fish habitat (EFH) designations, the habitat area of particular concern (HAPC) designations, and the habitat-related spatial management program for the New England Fishery Management Council's suite of fishery management plans (FMP). Omnibus EFH Amendment was developed over several years, with the first half dedicated to updating the EFH designations and consideration of HAPCs. The remainder of the development was focused on revising the system of year-round closed areas, which restrict some types of fishing gear in order to protect vulnerable habitat and establish a system of Dedicated Habitat Research Areas (DHRAs). Prior to consideration of management area changes, the Council determined it was important to consider revisions to the year-round groundfish closures together because of the substantial overlap with the habitat management closures.
The Council established 10 goals and 14 objectives to guide the development of this action. Goals 1-8 were established in 2004, at the onset of the Amendment's development, and focus on identification of EFH, fishing and non-fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH, and the development of measures and management programs to conserve, protect, and enhance EFH and to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH. The additional goals (9 and 10) were developed after the Council voted to incorporate revision of the groundfish closures in the Amendment. These goals are focused on enhancing groundfish productivity and maximizing the societal net benefits from groundfish.
The 14 objectives map to 1 or more of the Amendment's goals and provide more specific guidance on how to achieve that goal. For example, the objectives include identifying new data sources upon which to base the EFH designations (Objective A), developing analytical tools for EFH designation, minimization of adverse impacts, and monitoring the effectiveness of measures (Objective D; Goals 1, 3, and 5). Other objectives include modifying fishing methods to reduce impacts (Objective E; Goal 4), supporting the restoration of degraded habitat (Objective F; Goal 4), improved groundfish spawning protection, including protection of localized spawning contingents, and improved protection of critical groundfish habitats (Goals 9 and 10). Please see Volume 1, Section 3 of the in the EIS for more details on the goals and objectives of this Amendment.
The Council proposes to update the EFH designations for all species and all life stages for which more recent information is available. EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. EFH designations consist of two complementary elements, the text descriptions, and the map representations. Any specific area is only considered EFH if it is displayed in the EFH map and meets the conditions defined in the text description. Thus, the two components of EFH must be used in conjunction with one another when applying EFH designations to fishery management, EFH consultation, or other questions.
A full description of the updated designations, including maps of the designations, can be found in Volume 2 of the EIS. In addition, a thorough discussion of the methods and approaches used to assemble the designations is provided in the EIS. The quality and quantity of information varied by species, so a single approach for all Council-managed species and lifestage is not possible. The Council relied upon the best available scientific information for each species.
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are intended to highlight specific areas of EFH that require additional consideration. HAPC designations should be based on one or more of the following criteria: (1) The importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat, including both the historical and current ecological function; (2) the extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation; (3) whether, and to what extent, development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type; and (4) the rarity of the habitat type (50 CFR 600.815(a)(8)). The Council considered proposals from the public using additional criteria in designating HAPCs, including whether the designation would improve fisheries management in the exclusive economic zone, include EFH for more than one Council-managed species, include juvenile cod EFH, and meet more than one of the regulatory HAPC criteria listed above. Discussion of the areas considered and the eight criteria listed above can be found in Volume 2 of the EIS.
The Council is recommending that the current Atlantic Salmon HAPC and the Northern Edge Juvenile Cod HAPC remain as designated because they continue to meet the criteria listed above. In addition, the Council is recommending the following areas as new HAPCs: Inshore Juvenile Cod HAPC; Great South Channel Juvenile Cod HAPC; Cashes Ledge HAPC; Jeffreys Ledge/Stellwagen Bank HAPC; Bear and Retriever Seamounts; and
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fishery management plans evaluate and minimize, to the extent practicable, the adverse effects of fishing on designated EFH. The evaluation should consider the effects of each fishing activity on each type of habitat found with EFH. Councils must prevent, mitigate, or minimize any adverse effects from fishing on EFH, to the extent practicable, if there is evidence that a fishing activity adversely affects EFH in a manner that is more than minimal and not temporary in nature. To that end, the Council is recommending the following habitat management areas (HMA) and restrictions. Full descriptions, including maps and coordinates of the Council's recommendations, can be found in Volume 3 of the EIS.
In the Eastern Gulf of Maine, the Council recommends establishing the Small Eastern Maine HMA, closed to all mobile bottom-tending gears.
In the Central Gulf of Maine, the Council recommends maintaining the existing Cashes Ledge Groundfish Closure Area, with its current fishing restrictions and exemptions; modifying the existing Jeffreys Bank and Cashes Ledge Habitat Closure Areas, with their current fishing restrictions and exemptions; establishing the Fippennies Ledge HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear; and establishing the Ammen Rock HMA, closed to all fishing except lobster traps.
In the Western Gulf of Maine, the Council recommends maintaining the existing Western Gulf of Maine Habitat Closure Area, closed to mobile bottom-tending gears, and modifying the eastern boundary of the Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area to align with the habitat closure area, while maintaining the current fishing restrictions and requirements for both areas. The Council also recommends creating an exemption area within the northwest corner of those closures for shrimp trawls and designating the existing Roller Gear Restricted Area requirements as a habitat protection measure.
On Georges Bank, the Council recommends removing the year-round and habitat closures of Closed Areas I and II and replacing them with three new areas: (1) The Georges Shoal 2 HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear, with a one-year delay in closure to hydraulic clam dredges; (2) the Northern Edge Reduced Impact HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear, with two exceptions described below; and (3) the Northern Edge Mobile Bottom-Tending Gear HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear without any exceptions. Exemptions to the Reduced Impact HMA are scallop dredge fishing in accordance with the scallop rotational area program, and trawl fishing to the west of the existing western boundary of Closed Area II (67°20′ W. long.), in what is now the Eastern Georges Bank Special Access Program. In addition, any portions of the Closed Area II groundfish closed area north of 41°30′ N. lat. would be closed to scallop fishing between June 15 and October 31 of each year. The remainder of the existing Closed Area I Habitat and Groundfish Closure Areas and Closed Area II Groundfish Closure Area would be opened, except for seasonal spawning protection as described below.
In the Great South Channel, the Council recommends establishing the Great South Channel HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear. Closure to hydraulic clam dredges would be delayed for one year, outside of the northeast corner of the area. The Council also recommends establishing two HMAs on Cox Ledge, closed to hydraulic clam dredges, and requiring no ground cables on trawls fishing in the areas. The Nantucket Lightship Habitat Closure Area and the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area would be removed.
In the Gulf of Maine, the Council recommends establishing the Massachusetts Bay Cod Spawning Protection Area from November through January of each year and closing statistical block 125 for the first half of April each year (the “Spring Massachusetts Bay Spawning Protection Area.”) The Massachusetts Bay Spawning Protection Area would be closed to all vessels, except those that do not have a Federal Northeast multispecies permit and are fishing exclusively in state waters; that are fishing with exempted gears (Pelagic hook and line, pelagic longline, spears, rakes, diving gear, cast nets, tongs, harpoons, weirs, dipnets, stop nets, pound nets, pelagic gillnets, pots and traps, shrimp trawls (with a properly configured grate), and surfclam and ocean quahog dredges); charter/party or recreational fishing vessels, provided that pelagic hook and line gear is used, and there is no retention of regulated species or ocean pout; and vessels that are transiting. The Spring Massachusetts Bay Spawning Protection Area would be closed to all vessels, except vessels that do not have a Federal Northeast multispecies permit and are fishing exclusively in state waters; vessels fishing with exempted gears (Pelagic hook and line, pelagic longline, spears, rakes, diving gear, cast nets, tongs, harpoons, weirs, dipnets, stop nets, pound nets, pelagic gillnets, pots and traps, shrimp trawls (with a properly configured grate), and surfclam and ocean quahog dredges); vessels participating in the mid-water trawl exempted fishery; vessels participating in the purse seine exempted fishery, sea scallop dredge gear when under a scallop day-at-sea; vessels lawfully in a scallop dredge exemption area; vessels that are transiting; charter and party vessels; and recreational vessels.
On Georges Bank, the Council recommends converting the existing groundfish closure area, Closed Area II, and the existing habitat area, Closed Area I North, into seasonal closures. Both areas would be closed from February 1 through April 15 of each year to all commercial and recreational gears that catch groundfish, except scallop dredges, vessels fishing with exempted gears, vessels participating in the mid-water trawl fishery, and vessels that are transiting.
Dedicated Habitat Research Areas (DHRAs) are intended to facilitate more focused research on fishing gear impacts on habitat or other issues related to habitat and fisheries productivity. The Council is recommending two DHRAs in this amendment. The Stellwagen DHRA would be implemented with the same restrictions as the Western Gulf of Maine closed areas described above. The Georges Bank DHRA, which is the same footprint as the current Closed Area I South Habitat Closure Area, would be closed to mobile bottom-tending gear.
The Council is recommending these DHRAs in combination with a three-year sunset provision. If approved, three years after implementation, the Regional Administrator would initiate a review of the DHRAs and the research activity being conducted within them. If no research has been conducted or initiated to further the Council's habitat-related questions, the Regional Administrator may, after consultation with the Council, remove the DHRA designation.
The Council is recommending three administrative actions as part of the Omnibus EFH Amendment. First, additional spatial management measures, including designation or removal of HMAs and changes to fishing restrictions within HMAs, would be added to the list of frameworkable items for all fisheries. Second, a strategic process would be established to routinely evaluate the boundaries, scope, characteristics, and timing of the habitat and spawning protection areas, including a technical review that evaluates the performance of these areas at 10-year intervals following implementation. A list of questions to guide this review are provided in Volume 3 of the EIS. Third, building on what the Council learned during the review of the performance of existing closed areas and the development of new EFH management in this amendment, the Council would identify and periodically revise research priorities to improve habitat and spawning area monitoring.
Public comments on the Omnibus EFH Amendment and its incorporated documents may be submitted through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability. A proposed rule to implement the Amendment, including draft regulatory text, will be published in the
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Agricultural Labor Survey. Revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length.
Comments on this notice must be received by December 5, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0109, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388.
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Proposed collection; comments requested.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Business-Cooperative Service's (RBS) intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP).
Comments on this notice must be received by December 5, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Tony Crooks, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA, STOP 3225, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-3225, Telephone (202) 205-9322.
The collection of information is vital for Rural Development to make informed decisions regarding the eligibility of applicants and borrowers, establish selection priorities among competing applicants ensure compliance with applicable Rural Development regulations, and effectively monitor the grantees and borrowers activities to protect the Government's financial interest and ensure that funds obtained from the Government are used appropriately. This information will be used to determine applicant eligibility, to determine project eligibility and feasibility, and to ensure that grantees/borrowers operate on a sound basis and use funds for authorized purposes.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division at (202) 692-0040.
On June 5, 2017, the City of Conroe, grantee of FTZ 265, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Bauer Manufacturing LLC dba NEORig, within Site 1 of FTZ 265, in Conroe, Texas.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of new pneumatic off-the-road tires (OTR Tires) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 6, 2017.
Chien-Min Yang or Jack Zhao, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5484 or (202) 482-1396 respectively.
The products covered by the order are new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road (OTR) and off-highway use. For a full description of the scope of this order,
On September 4, 2008, the Department issued a countervailing duty order on new pneumatic tires designed for OTR and off-highway use.
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:
The statute and the Department's regulations do not directly address the establishment of rates to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination where the Department limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, the Department normally determines the rates for non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act instructs the Department as a general rule to calculate an all others rate using the weighted average of the subsidy rates established for the producers/exporters individually examined, excluding any zero,
The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after publication of these preliminary results.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties, in the amounts shown above for each of the respective companies shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
Notice of Application for an Amended Export Trade Certificate of Review by Northwest Fruit Exporters, Application No. 84-28A12.
The Secretary of Commerce, through the International Trade Administration, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (OTEA), has received an application for an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”) from Northwest Fruit
Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the
Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential.
An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21028, Washington, DC 20230.
Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the amended Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 84-28A12.”
A summary of the current application follows.
1. Add a definition of “export quota” to clarify that export quotas are those imposed by an authorized government entity in the receiving country. The term does not include a growers association.
2. Add the Affiliate Contractor to the Export Trade Certificate of Review, as the Affiliate Contractor will provide management services by contract to assist Northwest Fruit Exporters in carrying out its activities authorized under the Export Trade Certificate of Review:
3. Add a definition of “Affiliate Contractor” to recognize that the Northwest Horticultural Council (“NHC”) will be providing management services by contract to assist NFE in carrying out its activities authorized under the Export Trade Certificate of Review.
4. Add a clarifying amendment restating that meetings at which the NFE Board of Directors may allocate quotas among its members or establish export prices shall not be open to the public or to members of NFE not represented on the NFE Board of Directors. Employees of the Affiliate Contractor are eligible to attend such meetings.
5. Add an amendment that through the management services agreement between NFE and NHC, NHC staff may receive or have access to NFE information that is confidential or proprietary (“Confidential Information”). Employees of NHC will be required to maintain the confidentiality of the Confidential Information as is currently required of NFE employees. Failure to maintain the confidentiality of NFE's Confidential Information shall be cause for termination of employment
6. Change the name of the following existing Member:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 17, 2017, the Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the Department of Commerce's (Department) remand redetermination pertaining to the final determination in the less than fair value (LTFV) investigation of high pressure steel cylinders from the People's Republic of China (PRC). Because of the CIT's final decision, we are notifying the public that this court decision is not in harmony with the Department's final determination in the LTFV investigation, and we are also amending our final determination, revoking this antidumping duty order, in part, and discontinuing the fifth administrative review.
Applicable August 27, 2017.
Annathea Cook, AD/CVD Operations Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0250.
As noted above, on August 17, 2017, the CIT sustained the Department's Third Remand Redetermination pertaining to the final determination in the less than fair value (LTFV) investigation of high pressure steel cylinders from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Following the Department's First Remand Redetermination,
The Department filed its Second Remand Redetermination with the Court on February 8, 2016,
In accordance with the Court's instructions in
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the
Pursuant to section 735(a)(4) of the Act, the Department “shall disregard any weighted average dumping margin that is
We note, however, that pursuant to
Lastly, we note that, at this time, the Department remains enjoined by Court order from liquidating entries that were exported by BTIC, and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period December 16, 2011, through May 31, 2016. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c)(1) and (e) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending the final results of the countervailing duty administrative review of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells), from the People's Republic of China (PRC) to correct ministerial errors. The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.
Applicable October 6, 2017.
Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-3586.
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), on July 17, 2017, the Department published its final results in the countervailing duty administrative review of solar cells from the PRC.
The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials. The merchandise covered by this order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000. While these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope, which is contained in the Decision Memorandum accompanying the
Section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a “ministerial error” as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” As discussed in the Department's Ministerial Error Memorandum, the Department finds that the errors alleged by Canadian Solar constitute ministerial errors within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f).
In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the
As result of correcting the ministerial errors, we determine that that the countervailable subsidy rates for the producers/exporters under review to be as
Normally, the Department would issue appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of review, to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by the companies listed above entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. However, on August 3, 8, and 17, 2017, and on September 8, 2017, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) preliminarily enjoined liquidation of certain entries that are subject to the
The Department intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties, in the amounts shown above for the companies listed above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 17, 2017, which is the date of publication of the
This notice also serves a reminder to parties that are subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to government business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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 intend to disclose the calculations performed for these amended final results to interested parties within five business days of the date of the publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable October 6, 2017.
As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan and certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail are indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Jacqueline Arrowsmith, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and
On May 7, 1984, the Department published the
On June 2, 2017, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews of the
On June 30, 2017, the Department received complete substantive responses to the notices of initiation from domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties. As a result, the Department conducted an expedited,
The products covered by these orders are circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4 mm (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes are intended for the low pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses, and generally meet ASTM A-53 specifications. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and support members for reconstruction or load-bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, and related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in these orders. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included within the scope of these orders, except line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished conduit. Standard pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled that enters the U.S. as line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines is also not included in these orders. The Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice, provides a full description of the scope of the order.
The products covered by this order are circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and are intended for the low pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses, and generally meet ASTM A-53 specifications. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and support members for reconstruction or load-bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, and related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in these orders. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included within the scope of this order, except line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished conduit. Standard pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled that enters the U.S. as line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines is also not included in this order.
The merchandise subject to this review is circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4 mm (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, and other related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in this order. All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included within the scope of this review except line pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished conduit. In accordance with the Department's Final Negative Determination of Scope Inquiry on
The products covered by this order are (1) circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross section over 114.3 millimeters (4.5 inches), but not over 406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, with a wall thickness of 1.65 millimeters (0.065 inches) or more, regardless of surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end-finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled); and (2) circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section less than 406.4 millimeters (16 inches), with a wall thickness of less than 1.65 millimeters (0.065 inches), regardless of surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted) or end-finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and are intended for the low pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkling systems, and other related uses, and generally meet ASTM A-53 specifications. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for fence-tubing and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and support members for construction, or load-bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm-equipment, and related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in this order.
All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included within the scope of this order, except line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished conduit. Standard pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled that enters the U.S. as line pipe of a kind or used for oil and gas pipelines is also not included in this investigation.
The merchandise covered by this order is certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan, which are defined as: Welded carbon steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross section, with walls not thinner than 0.065 inch, and 0.375 inch or more but not over 4.5 inches in outside diameter. The Issues and Decision Memorandum provides a full description of the scope of the order.
All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation, and the magnitude of dumping margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Mexico, Korea, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. We determine that the weighted-average dumping margins likely to prevail are up to the following percentages:
Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. We determine that the weighted average dumping margin likely to prevail is up to the following percentage:
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable October 6, 2017.
As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (butt-weld fittings) from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the rates identified in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Madeline Heeren, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-9179.
The Department published the antidumping duty orders on butt-weld fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines on February 23, 2001.
On June 30, 2017, the Department received an adequate substantive response to the notice of initiation from Domestic Interested Parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did not receive any timely filed responses from the respondent interested parties,
The product covered by the Orders is butt-weld fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines.
The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum are: (1) The likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, and (2) the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if these orders were revoked.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the antidumping duty orders of butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines would likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be 26.59 percent for Italy, 7.51 percent for Malaysia, and up to 33.81 percent for the Philippines.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return of destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products (CLPP) from India, covering the period September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016. This review covers two mandatory respondents, Navneet Education Ltd. (Navneet) and SAB International (SAB) and five non-selected companies. We preliminarily find that Navneet and SAB did not sell subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 6, 2017.
Cindy Robinson or Sam Brummitt, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-7851, respectively.
On November 9, 2016, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping order on lined paper from India.
On May 15, 2017, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results to October 2, 2017.
The merchandise covered by the
Lodha and Marisa reported that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. To confirm Lodha's and Marisa's no shipment claims, the Department issued a no-shipment inquiry to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) requesting that it review Lodha's and Marisa's no-shipment claims.
Given that Lodha and Marisa certified that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and there is no information calling their claims into question, we preliminarily determine that Lodha and Marisa did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. Consistent with the Department's practice, we will not rescind the review with respect to Lodha and Marisa but, rather, will complete the review and issue instructions to CBP based on the final results.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price or export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results,
SAB reported that it made no sales in the home market during the POR.
As a result of this review, we preliminarily calculated a dumping margin of zero percent for both Navneet and SAB. We are applying to the non-selected companies the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents in these preliminary results, as referenced below.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If the weighted-average dumping margin for Navneet or SAB is not zero or
In accordance with the Department's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which it did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rates established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 3.91 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation as modified by the section 129 determination.
The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case briefs, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing 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 increase the subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. The Department initiated this administrative review with respect to the following producers/exporters of subject merchandise: Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret (collectively, Borusan); and Tosçelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.Ş. and Tosyali Diş Ticaret A. Ş. (collectively, Toscelik). We preliminarily find that Borusan received countervailable subsidies at
Applicable October 6, 2017.
Jennifer Shore or Aimee Phelan, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2778 or (202) 482-0697, respectively.
On September 8, 2016, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the CVD order on OCTG from Turkey for the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
The merchandise covered by the order is certain OCTG, which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
We are conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy,
As stated above, the Department initiated an administrative review of Toscelik for the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.
We preliminarily find that the following net countervailable subsidy rate for the mandatory respondent, Borusan, for the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015:
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
As a result of Toscelik's exclusion from the CVD order on OCTG from Turkey, the Department will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation of entries of subject merchandise where Toscelik acted as both the producer and exporter during the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, all entries of OCTG produced and exported by Toscelik currently suspended. Entries of subject merchandise exported to the United States by any other producer and exporter combination involving Toscelik are not entitled to this exclusion from suspension of liquidation and are subject to the cash deposit rate for the “all others” entity. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown above for Borusan, should the final results of this administrative review remain the same as these preliminary results; if the rate is zero or
We will disclose to parties in this review the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of publication of these preliminary results.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
These preliminary results and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On June 1, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (steel pipes and tubes) from Turkey pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department has conducted an expedited sunset review of this order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Effective October 6, 2017.
Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-8362.
The CVD order on steel pipes and tubes from Turkey was published in the
The Department did not receive any substantive responses from Turkish producers or exporters of the merchandise covered by this order. A government's response alone, normally, is not sufficient for the Department to conduct a full sunset review, unless the investigation was conducted on an aggregate basis.
The products covered by the order are certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not over 16 inches, of any wall thickness (pipes and tubes) from Turkey. These products are currently provided for under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) as item numbers 7306.30.10, 7306.30.50, and 7306.90.10. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is dated concurrently with and adopted by this notice.
As a result of this review, the Department determines that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:
This notice also serves
We are issuing and publishing the final results of this review in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of rescheduled SEDAR 52 assessment scoping webinar for Gulf of Mexico red snapper.
The SEDAR 52 assessment process of Gulf of Mexico red snapper will consist of an In-person Workshop, and a series of assessment webinars.
The SEDAR 52 assessment scoping webinar will be held October 26, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The original notice published in the
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion during the assessment scoping webinar are as follows:
Panelists will review the data sets being considered for the assessment and discuss initial modeling efforts.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) units integrate global positioning system (GPS) and communications electronics into a single, tamper-resistant package to automatically determine the vessel's position several times per hour. The units can be set to transmit a vessel's location periodically and automatically to an overhead satellite in real time. In most cases, the vessel owner is unaware of exactly when the unit is transmitting and is unable to alter the signal or the time of transmission. The VMS unit is passive and automatic, requiring no reporting effort by the vessel operator. A communications service provider receives the transmission and relays it to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Law Enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard. Enforcement of management measures, such as directed fishing closures and critical habitat no-fishing zones, relies heavily on the use of VMS.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 5, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Walter Ikehara, (808) 725-5175, or
This request is for a revision and extension of a currently approved information collection.
Regulations at 50 CFR 665, Subpart F, require that a vessel must be registered to a valid federal fishing permit to fish with longline gear for Pacific pelagic management unit species (PMUS), land or transship longline caught PMUS, or receive longline caught PMUS from a longline vessel, within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of United States (U.S.) islands in the central and western Pacific, to fish with pelagic squid jig gear for PMUS within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of United States (U.S.) islands in the central and western Pacific, or to fish with troll and handline gear for PMUS within the EEZ around each of the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA), in areas not prohibited to fishing.
Regulations at 50 CFR parts 665, Subparts D and E, require that the owner of a vessel used to fish for, land, or transship bottomfish management unit species (BMUS) using a large vessel (50 ft or longer) around Guam, fish commercially for BMUS in the EEZ around the Northern Mariana Islands, or use a vessel to fish for BMUS within the EEZ around each of the PRIA, in areas not prohibited to fishing, must register it to a valid federal fishing permit.
Regulations at 50 CFR 665, Subparts B, C, D, and E, require that a vessel used to fish for precious corals within the EEZ of U.S. islands in the central and western Pacific, must be registered to a valid federal fishing permit for a specific precious coral permit area.
The collection is revised by merging currently approved information collections OMB Control Numbers 0648-0584, Northern Mariana Islands Commercial Bottomfish Fishery Permit, 0648-0586, Pacific Islands Crustacean Permit, and 0648-0589, Pacific Islands Pelagic Squid Jig Fishing Permit, into OMB Control No. 0648-0490 Pacific Islands Region Permit Family of Forms. NMFS approved new two-tier processing fees for most permits, resulting in revised cost estimates.
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, or online applications when implemented, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of time change of a public hearing.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its 171st Council meeting to take actions on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.
The Council meeting will be held on October 17 to October 19, 2017.
The 171st Council meeting will be held at Governor H. Rex Lee Auditorium (Fale Laumei), Utulei, American Samoa, phone: (684) 633-5155.
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; phone: (808) 522-8220.
The original notice published in the
The 171st Council Meeting will be held on October 17, 2017 between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. with a Public Hearing between 7:30 p.m. and 9 p.m.; on October 18, 2017 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. with a Fishers Forum between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m.; and on October 19, 2017 between 8:30 p.m. and 3 p.m.
Agenda items noted as “Final Action Items” refer to actions that result in Council transmittal of a proposed fishery management plan, proposed plan amendment, or proposed regulations to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, under Sections 304 or 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. An opportunity to submit public comment will be provided throughout the agendas. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change and will be announced in advance at the Council meeting. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business. Background documents will be available from, and written comments should be sent to, Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, phone: (808) 522-8220 or fax: (808) 522-8226.
Non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion and formal Council action during its 171st meeting. However, Council action on regulatory issues will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any regulatory issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice; correction.
The notice of an open meeting scheduled for October 20, 2017 published in the
Mrs. Deadra K. Ghostlaw, the Designated Federal Officer for the committee, in writing at: Secretary of the General Staff, ATTN: Deadra K. Ghostlaw, 646 Swift Road, West Point, NY 10996; by email at:
None.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) Board of Visitors. This meeting is open to the public.
The WHINSEC Board of Visitors will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 2, 2017.
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, Bradley Hall, 7301 Baltzell Avenue, Building 396, Fort Benning, GA 31905.
Mr. Richard Procell, Acting Executive Secretary for the Committee, in writing at USACGSC, 100 Stimson Avenue, Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-2301, by email at
The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), 41 CFR 102-3.140(c), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
Department of the Navy, DoD
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy), after carefully weighing the environmental consequences of the proposed action, announces its decision to implement Alternative 1, the Navy's preferred alternative, as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Disposal and Reuse of the Former Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Detachment Concord (NWS Concord), Concord, California. This decision will make approximately 4,972 acres of former NWS Concord property available to the local community for economic redevelopment.
Disposal and reuse under the chosen alternative is consistent with the City of Concord's “Concord Reuse Project Area Plan” and Public Law 101-510, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC) of 1990, as amended in 2005. The complete text of the Record of Decision (ROD) is available for public viewing on the project Web site at
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
In this notice, we announce the waivers that the U.S. Department of Education (Department) granted during calendar year 2014 under the waiver authority in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (ESEA), including waivers related to flexibilities granted to States in exchange for State-led reforms (ESEA flexibility).
The ESEA requires that the Department publish in the
Kia Weems, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W341, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-2221 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In 2014, the Department granted waivers through an initiative known as ESEA flexibility to 39 States under the waiver authority in section 9401 of the ESEA, in exchange for rigorous and comprehensive State-developed plans designed to improve student academic
(a) The following 10 waivers to 39 SEAs under ESEA flexibility:
1. Flexibility Regarding the 2014 Timeline for Determining Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP);
2. Flexibility in Implementation of School Improvement Requirements;
3. Flexibility in Implementation of Local Educational Agency (LEA) Improvement Requirements;
4. Flexibility for Rural LEAs;
5. Flexibility for Schoolwide Programs;
6. Flexibility to Support School Improvement;
7. Flexibility for Reward Schools;
8. Flexibility Regarding Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Improvement Plans;
9. Flexibility to Transfer Certain Funds; and
10. Flexibility to Use School Improvement Grant (SIG) funds to Support Priority Schools.
In addition to waiving the 10 provisions listed above, the Department granted three optional waivers under ESEA flexibility related to the following:
1. Waivers of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) requirement to provide services during non-school hours or when school is not in session;
2. Waivers of the requirement to make AYP determinations; and
3. Waivers of requirements pertaining to Title I, Part A within-district allocations.
(b)
(c) Eight waivers pertaining to SIG school eligibility requirements and the definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools”;
(d) Six waivers allowing SEAs to approve schools or LEAs identified as “in need of improvement” to become supplemental educational services (SES) providers;
(e)
(f) Two waivers of the third of three annual measureable achievement objectives (AMAOs 3) under Title III, allowing States to use the same targets used to determine AYP under Title I in place of the State's AMOs;
(g) One waiver of the requirement under Title I, Part A to provide parents notice of public school choice options at least 14 days before the start of the school year; and
(h) 10 waivers of the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program absolute priority requirement in the notice of final priorities (NFR) that required each TIF grantee to develop a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals, and of one of the five core elements in the NFR.
The Department waived the requirements in section 1111(b)(2)(E)-(H) of the ESEA that prescribe how an SEA establishes AMOs for determining AYP to ensure that all students met or exceeded the State's proficient level of academic achievement on the State's assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics no later than the end of the 2013—2014 school year. Under this waiver, an SEA no longer needed to follow the statutory procedures for setting AMOs to use in determining AYP. Instead, an SEA had flexibility to develop new ambitious but achievable AMOs in reading/language arts and mathematics in order to provide meaningful goals to guide support and improvement efforts for the State, LEAs, schools, and student subgroups.
The Department waived the requirements in section 1116(b) of the ESEA for an LEA to identify for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, as appropriate, a Title I school that failed, for two consecutive years or more, to make AYP, and for a school so identified and its LEA to take certain improvement actions. Under this waiver, an LEA was no longer required to identify respective Title I schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, and neither the LEA nor its schools were required to take statutorily required improvement actions, including providing public school choice and supplemental educational services (SES) to eligible students. An LEA was also exempt from administrative and reporting requirements related to school improvement.
The Department waived the requirements in section 1116(c) of the ESEA for an SEA to identify for improvement or corrective action, as appropriate, an LEA that, for two consecutive years or more, failed to make AYP, and neither the LEA nor the SEA was required to take statutorily required improvement actions. An LEA was also exempt from associated administrative and reporting requirements related to LEA improvement.
The Department waived the requirements in sections 6213(b) and 6224(e) of the ESEA that limited participation in, and use of funds under, the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) and Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) programs based on whether an LEA made AYP and was complying with the requirements in section 1116 of the ESEA. Under the waiver, an LEA that received SRSA or RLIS funds had flexibility to use those
The Department waived the requirement in section 1114(a)(1) of the ESEA that a school have a poverty percentage of 40 percent or more in order to operate a schoolwide program. Under this waiver, an LEA had flexibility to operate a schoolwide program in a Title I school that did not meet the 40 percent poverty threshold if the SEA identified the school as a priority school or a focus school, and the LEA implemented interventions consistent with the turnaround principles or interventions that were based on the needs of the students in the school and designed to enhance the entire educational program in the school, as appropriate.
The Department waived the requirement in section 1003(a) of the ESEA for an SEA to distribute funds reserved under that section only to LEAs with schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. Under this waiver, an SEA had flexibility to allocate ESEA section 1003(a) funds to an LEA in order to serve any priority or focus school, if the SEA determined such school was most in need of additional support.
The Department waived the provision in section 1117(c)(2)(A) of the ESEA that authorized an SEA to reserve Title I, Part A funds to reward a Title I school that (1) significantly closed the achievement gap between subgroups in the school; or (2) exceeded AYP for two or more consecutive years. Under this waiver, an SEA had flexibility to use funds reserved under section 1117(c)(2)(A) of the ESEA to provide financial rewards to any reward school, if the SEA determined such school was most appropriate to receive a financial reward.
The Department waived the requirements in section 2141(a) through (c) of the ESEA for an LEA and SEA to comply with certain requirements for improvement plans regarding highly qualified teachers. Under the waiver, an LEA that did not meet its HQT target did not have to develop an improvement plan under section 2141 of the ESEA and had flexibility in how it used its Title I and Title II funds. An SEA was exempt from the requirements regarding its role in the implementation of those plans, including the requirement that it enter into agreements with LEAs on the use of funds and the requirement that it provide technical assistance to LEAs on their plans.
The Department waived the limitations in section 6123 of the ESEA that limited the amount of funds an SEA or LEA may transfer from certain ESEA programs to other ESEA programs. Under this waiver, an SEA and its LEAs had flexibility to transfer up to 100 percent of the funds received under the authorized programs among those programs and into Title I, Part A. Moreover, to minimize burden at the State and local levels, the SEA was not required to notify the Department, and its participating LEAs were not required to notify the SEA, prior to transferring funds.
The Department waived the requirements in section 1003(g)(4) of the ESEA and the definition of a Tier I school in Section I.A.3 of the SIG final requirements. Under this waiver, an SEA had flexibility to award SIG funds available under section 1003(g) of the ESEA to an LEA to implement one of the four SIG models in any priority school.
The Department waived requirements in sections 4201(b)(1)(A) and 4204(b)(2)(A) of the ESEA that restricted the activities provided by a community learning center under the 21st CCLC program to activities provided only during non-school hours or periods when school was not in session (
The Department waived the requirements in section 1116(a)(1)(A)-(B) and (c)(1)(A) of the ESEA that required LEAs and SEAs to make determinations of AYP for schools and LEAs, respectively. Instead, an SEA and its LEAs had to report on their report cards performance against the AMOs for all subgroups identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA, and use performance against the AMOs to support continuous improvement in Title I schools.
The Department waived the requirements in section 1113(a)(3)-(4) of the ESEA that required an LEA to serve eligible schools under Title I in rank order of poverty and to allocate Title I, Part A funds based on that rank ordering. Under this waiver, an LEA had flexibility to serve with Title I funds a Title I-eligible high school with a graduation rate below 60 percent that the SEA identified as a priority school even if that school did not rank sufficiently high to be served based solely on the school's poverty rate.
A. Waivers to extend the period of availability of SIG ARRA funds.
Extended the period of availability of FY 2009 SIG funds awarded under Public Law 111-5, ARRA.
B. Waivers to extend the period of availability of SIG funds.
1. Extended the period of availability of FY 2009 SIG funds awarded under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
2. Extended the period of availability of FY 2010 SIG funds awarded under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
3. Extended the period of availability of FY 2011 SIG funds awarded under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
4. Extended the period of availability of FY 2012 SIG funds awarded under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
5. Extended the period of availability of FY 2013 SIG funds awarded under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
C. Waiver to extend the period of availability of FY 2012 funds received under section 1003(g) of the ESEA and included in Consolidated Grant funds for Insular Areas.
D. Waiver to extend the period of availability of FY 2012 funds for the Mathematics and Science Partnerships program awarded under Title II, Part B of the ESEA.
Waivers to replace the list of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools with the State's list of priority schools and to replace the definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools” with the State's definition of “priority schools.”
Waivers permitting SEAs to approve a school or LEA identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring to serve as an SES provider.
A. One-year waiver of the statutory and regulatory requirements under Title I, Part A of the ESEA that required States to apply the same academic content and academic achievement
B. Waiver permitting students (except those with the most significant cognitive disabilities) to take only one assessment in each content area in 2013-2014—either the current State assessment or the full form of the field test of the new assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards.
C. Waiver permitting the State to assess students who were not yet enrolled in high school but who took advanced, high school level coursework with the corresponding advanced, high school level assessment alone.
D. Waiver permitting students with the most significant cognitive disabilities within the State to take only one assessment in each content area in 2013-2014—either the current State alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards or the field test of new alternate assessments.
E. Waiver permitting a State to administer the high school exit examination to high school students in grade 10 and the alternate performance assessment to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
One-year waiver to allow the SEA to use, for purposes of AMAO 3, the same targets used in the growth component of its State-developed differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system in reading, writing, and mathematics, in place of the State's AMOs.
Allowed a State to postpone notice of public school choice options beyond 14 days before the start of the school year to parents of eligible children attending schools that were newly identified for improvement or made AYP in the previous year, but did not exit improvement status.
Waiver of two TIF requirements, permitting: (1) LEAs to use results of State assessments as the measure of student growth for the performance evaluations for teachers of tested grades and subjects, and (2) eligibility for TIF-funded performance-based compensation to be based on results of evaluations that include such a measure of student growth.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
In this notice, we announce the waivers that the U.S. Department of Education (Department) granted during calendar year 2011 under the waiver authority of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (ESEA).
The ESEA requires that the Department publish in the
Kia Weems, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W341, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-2221 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In 2011, the Department granted a total of 157 waivers under the waiver authority in section 9401 of the ESEA. We granted:
(a) 67 Waivers extending the period in which funds were available for obligation: 28 waivers extending the period for ESEA State-administered formula grant programs that received fiscal year (FY) 2009 funds made available under Public Law 111-8, the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2009; 25 waivers for ESEA State-administered formula grant programs that received FY 2009 funds made available under Public Law 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA); and 14 waivers for School Improvement Grants (SIG) funds;
(b) 30 waivers relating to SIG program requirements: Three waivers of the requirement for SEAs to carry over 25 percent of their FY 2009 funds, combine those funds with FY 2010 SIG funds, and award those funds to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs); four waivers pertaining to SEAs' requests to carry over FY 2009 and FY 2010 SIG funds and to award those funds to LEAs through a competition conducted during the 2011-2012 school year; four waivers based on the determination that an SEA would not be able to submit an approvable application prior to September 30, 2011, and, as a result, absent the waiver, its FY 2010 SIG funds would expire and the SEA would not be able to support interventions in its persistently lowest-achieving schools; and 19 waivers granting additional time to meet the teacher and principal evaluation requirement for schools in the first (2010-2011 school year) and second (2011-2012 school year) cohorts of SIG grants;
(c) Five waivers of requirements related to State academic assessments and school improvement: Three waivers allowing LEAs to waive the requirement to use State academic assessments and other academic indicators to review progress to determine whether a school is making adequate yearly progress (AYP); one waiver of the requirement to ensure that the results of State academic assessments are available to LEAs before the beginning of the school year following the one in which the assessments were administered; and one waiver of the deadline to identify schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring;
(d) 41 waivers of requirements related to supplemental educational services (SES) and public school choice: 22 waivers to permit SEAs to approve a school or LEA identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring to serve as an SES provider; 16 waivers of the requirement for LEAs to spend an amount equal to 20 percent of their Title I allocation on SES and transportation for public school choice; and three waivers of the requirement for LEAs to provide parents of eligible students with notice of their public school choice options at least 14 days before the start of the school year;
(e) Nine waivers relating to the requirement that each State plan demonstrate the adoption of challenging academic content standards and challenging student academic achievement standards: six waivers of the annual requirement that the assessments administered be aligned with the State's academic content and achievement standards; two waivers of the requirement for States to use the same academic assessments to measure the achievement of all students and to determine AYP; and one waiver of the requirement to include all students enrolled at the time of testing in the participation rate calculations used to determine AYP;
(f) Two waivers relating to determining eligible school attendance areas: One waiver of the requirement that an eligible school attendance area have a percentage of children from low-income families that is at least as high as the percentage of children from low-income families served by the LEA as a whole;
(g) One waiver of the requirement that not more than five percent of funds be used to provide financial incentives and rewards to teachers;
(h) One waiver to allow an LEA to operate a schoolwide program even though its percentage of students from low-income families is less than 40 percent; and
(i) One waiver of the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program absolute priority requirement in the notice inviting applications (NIA) that requires each TIF grantee to develop a rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals, and of one of the five core elements in the NIA.
• Arizona Department of Education, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A; Title I, Part C; Title II, Part B; Title II, Part D; and Title VI, Section 6111;
• California Department of Education, December 19, 2011, Title II, Part D;
• Colorado Department of Education, November 29, 2011, Title I, Part A; Title I, Part B, Subpart 3; Title I, Part C; Title II, Part A; Title II, Part D; Title III, Part A; Title IV, Part A; Title IV, Part B; and Title VI, Section 6111;
• District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent of Education, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A; Title I, Part D; Title II, Part A; Title II, Part B; Title II, Part D; Title III, Part A; Title IV, Part A; Title IV, Part B; and Title VI, Section 6111;
• Florida Department of Education, December 15, 2011, Title II, Part B; Title II, Part D; and Title IV, Part A;
• Indiana Department of Education, November 28, 2011, Title I, Part C; Title II, Part D; and Title IV, Part A;
• Kansas Department of Education, November 14, 2011, Title IV, Part A; and Title IV, Part B;
• Louisiana Department of Education, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A; Title I, Part B, Subpart 3; Title I, Part C; Title I, Part D; Title II, Part A; Title II, Part B; Title II, Part D; Title III, Part A; and Title IV, Part A;
• Maine Department of Education, December 19, 2011, Title I, Part C;
• Maryland Department of Education, November 21, 2011, Title I, Part A; Title II, Part B; Title II, Part D; Title III, Part A; and Title IV, Part A;
• Michigan Department of Education, November 29, 2011, Title I, Part A; Title I, Part D; Title II, Part D; and Title IV, Part A;
• Minnesota Department of Education, November 14, 2011, Title I, Part A; Title I, Part C; Title II, Part A; Title II, Part B; Title II, Part D; Title III, Part A; Title IV, Part A; and Title VI, Section 6111;
• Nebraska Department of Education, November 22, 2011, Title I, Part A; Title I, Part C ; Title I, Part C (Migrant Education Consortium Incentive Grants); Title I, Part C (Migrant Education Data Quality Grants); Title II, Part A; Title II, Part D; Title III, Part A; and Title IV, Part A;
• Nevada Department of Education, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A; and Title II, Part D;
• New Hampshire Department of Education, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A; Title I, Part B, Subpart 3; Title I, Part C; Title I, Part D; Title II, Part A; Title II, Part D; Title III, Part A; Title IV, Part A; and Title IV, Part B;
• New Jersey Department of Education, November 28, 2011, Title I, Part C (Migrant Education Consortium Incentive Grants); Title I, Part C (Migrant Education Student Information Exchange Data Quality Grants); and Title IV, Part A;
• New Mexico Public Education Department, December 19, 2011, Title I, Part B, Subpart 3; Title II, Part D; and Title IV, Part A;
• North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, November 14, 2011, Title I, Part C; and Title IV, Part A;
• North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, December 19, 2011, Title I, Part A; Title I, Part B, Subpart 3; Title II, Part A; Title II, Part B; Title II, Part D; Title IV, Part A; and Title IV, Part B;
• Oklahoma State Department of Education, November 28, 2011, Title IV, Part A;
• Puerto Rico Department of Education, December 19, 2011, Title I, Part A; Title I, Part B, Subpart 3; Title I, Part D; Title II, Part A; Title II, Part B; Title II, Part D; Title III, Part A; Title IV, Part A; Title IV, Part B; and Title VI, Section 6111;
• Rhode Island Department of Education, November 28, 2011, Title II, Part D;
• South Carolina Department of Education, December 18, 2011, Title II, Part B;
• Tennessee Department of Education, November 28, 2011, Title I, Part A (including funds reserved for State Academic Achievement Awards program authorized in section 1117(c)(2)(A) of the ESEA and school improvement activities authorized in section 1003(a) of the ESEA); Title II, Part D; and Title IV, Part A;
• Vermont Agency of Education, December 15, 2011, Title IV, Part A;
• Virginia Department of Education, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A; Title I, Part B, Subpart 3; Title I, Part D; Title II, Part A; Title II, Part B; Title II, Part D; Title III, Part A; Title IV, Part A; and Title IV, Part B;
• Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part B, Subpart 3; and Title II, Part A; and
• Wyoming Department of Education, December 19, 2011, Title I, Part A.
• Arizona Department of Education, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• California Department of Education, December 19, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• Colorado Department of Education, November 29, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent of Education, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• Florida Department of Education, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• Indiana Department of Education, November 28, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA);
• Kansas Department of Education, November 14, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA);
• Louisiana Department of Education, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• Maine Department of Education, December 19, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• Maryland Department of Education, November 21, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• Michigan Department of Education, November 29, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• Minnesota Department of Education, November 14, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• Nebraska Department of Education, November 22, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• Nevada Department of Education, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA);
• New Hampshire Department of Education, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• New Jersey Department of Education, November 28, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• New Mexico Public Education Department, December 19, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, November 14, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA);
• North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, December 19, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• Puerto Rico Department of Education, December 19, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• Tennessee Department of Education, November 28, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• Vermont Agency of Education, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• Virginia Department of Education, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA);
• Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, December 15, 2011, Title I, Part A (ARRA); and Title II, Part D (ARRA); and
• Wyoming Department of Education, December 19, 2011, Title II, Part D (ARRA).
1. Extended the period of availability of FY 2008 SIG funds awarded under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
• Alabama Department of Education, January 26, 2011;
• Colorado Department of Education, January 18, 2011;
• Illinois State Board of Education, January 26, 2011;
• Maryland Department of Education, January 26, 2011;
• Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, January 18, 2011;
• Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, May 17, 2011 (second extension);
• New Hampshire Department of Education, April 13, 2011;
• New Jersey Department of Education, January 26, 2011;
• Ohio Department of Education, January 26, 2011; and
• Puerto Rico Department of Education, January 26, 2011.
2. Extended the period of availability of FY 2009 SIG funds awarded under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
• Arizona Department of Education, January 24, 2011.
3. Extended the period of availability of FY 2010 SIG funds awarded under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
• Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, September 20, 2011;
• Nebraska Department of Education, July 25, 2011; and
• Pennsylvania Department of Education, December 13, 2011.
A.
• Minnesota Department of Education, June 13, 2011;
• Montana Office of Public Instruction, August 2, 2011; and
• New Mexico Public Education Department, March 28, 2011.
B.
• Alabama Department of Education, September 20, 2011;
• Bureau of Indian Education, September 20, 2011;
• California Department of Education, September 20, 2011; and
• Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, September 20, 2011.
C.
• Hawaii Department of Education, September 21, 2011;
• Rhode Island Department of Education, September 20, 2011;
• Tennessee Department of Education, September 20, 2011; and
• Vermont Agency of Education, September 21, 2011.
D.
• Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, September 15, 2011;
• Arizona Department of Education, September 15, 2011;
• Arkansas State Department of Education, September 15, 2011;
• Delaware Department of Education, October 5, 2011;
• Iowa Department of Education, September 15, 2011;
• Kansas Department of Education, September 20, 2011;
• Kentucky Department of Education, September 19, 2011;
• Maine Department of Education, November 4, 2011;
• Montana Office of Public Instruction, September 15, 2011;
• Nevada Department of Education, November 14, 2011;
• New Hampshire Department of Education, November 4, 2011;
• New Mexico Public Education Department, November 4, 2011;
• North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, September 15, 2011;
• Ohio Department of Education, September 15, 2011;
• Oklahoma State Department of Education, October 5, 2011;
• South Carolina Department of Education, September 29, 2011;
• South Dakota Department of Education, September 27, 2011;
• Utah State Office of Education, September 20, 2011; and
• Virginia Department of Education, October 5, 2011.
A.
1.
• Provisions waived: Section 1116(a)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(A) of the ESEA; 34 CFR 200.30 and 200.50(a).
•
•
2.
•
•
•
B.
1.
•
•
•
C.
• Alabama Department of Education, July 25, 2011;
• Alaska Department of Education, May 6, 2011;
• California Department of Education, July 25, 2011;
• Connecticut State Department of Education, November 4, 2011;
• Delaware Department of Education, July 25, 2011;
• Maryland Department of Education, July 28, 2011;
• Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, June 30, 2011;
• Minnesota Department of Education, August 15, 2011;
• Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, September 15, 2011;
• New Mexico Public Education Department, November 4, 2011;
• North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, August 29, 2011;
• Ohio Department of Education, August 23, 2011;
• Oklahoma State Department of Education, September 22, 2011;
• South Dakota Department of Education, June 29, 2011;
• Virginia Department of Education, July 25, 2011; and
• Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, July 25, 2011.
D.
1.
•
•
•
E.
• Colorado Department of Education, May 6, 2011;
• Kentucky Department of Education, March 25, 2011; and
• Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, June 30, 2011.
• Alaska Department of Education, May 6, 2011;
• California Department of Education, July 25, 2011;
• Colorado Department of Education, July 25, 2011;
• Connecticut Department of Education, November 4, 2011;
• Delaware Department of Education, July 25, 2011;
• Florida Department of Education, September 28, 2011;
• Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, June 30, 2011;
• Minnesota Department of Education, August 15, 2011;
• Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, September 15, 2011;
• Montana Office of Public Instruction, July 25, 2011;
• New Mexico Public Education Department, November 4, 2011;
• New York State Education Department, February 10, 2011;
• North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, June 6, 2011;
• Ohio Department of Education, August 23, 2011;
• Oklahoma State Department of Education, May 3, 2011;
• Rhode Island Department of Education, June 30, 2011;
• South Carolina Department of Education, August 1, 2011;
• South Dakota Department of Education, June 29, 2011;
• Twin Rivers Unified School District, April 5, 2011 (a two-year waiver to allow Twin Rivers Unified School District to be eligible to apply to serve as an SES provider in the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years even though it was identified for improvement);
• Virginia Department of Education, July 25, 2011;
• Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, July 25, 2011; and
• Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, November 4, 2011.
A.
1.
•
•
•
2.
•
•
•
3.
•
•
•
4.
•
•
•
B.
• Kansas Department of Education, April 5, 2011 (a one-year waiver with respect to McPherson Unified School District of the statutory and regulatory requirements under Title I, Part A of the ESEA that required the State to use the same academic assessments to measure the achievement of all students and to determine AYP); and
• Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, June 30, 2011. A one-year waiver of the statutory and regulatory requirements under Title I, Part A of the ESEA that required the State to use the same academic assessments to measure the achievement of all students and to determine AYP.
C.
1.
•
•
•
A.
1.
•
•
•
B.
1.
•
•
•
A.
1.
•
•
•
A.
1.
•
•
•
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
In this notice, we announce the waivers that the U.S. Department of Education (Department) granted during calendar year 2013 under the waiver authority of the Elementary and
The ESEA requires that the Department publish in the
Kia Weems, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W341, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-2221 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In 2013, the Department granted waivers through an initiative known as ESEA flexibility to 45 States under the waiver authority in section 9401 of the ESEA, in exchange for a rigorous and comprehensive State-developed plan designed to improve student academic achievement and increase the quality of instruction.
We granted:
(a) ESEA Flexibility: The Department granted the following ten waivers to 45 SEAs under ESEA flexibility:
1. Flexibility Regarding the 2013-2014 Timeline for Determining Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP);
2. Flexibility in Implementation of School Improvement Requirements;
3. Flexibility in Implementation of Local Educational Agency (LEA) Improvement Requirements;
4. Flexibility for Rural LEAs;
5. Flexibility for Schoolwide Programs;
6. Flexibility to Support School Improvement;
7. Flexibility for Reward Schools;
8. Flexibility Regarding Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Improvement Plans;
9. Flexibility to Transfer Certain Funds; and
10. Flexibility to Use School Improvement Grant (SIG) Funds to Support Priority Schools.
In addition to waiving the ten provisions listed above, the Department granted three optional waivers under ESEA flexibility related to the following:
1. Waivers of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) requirement to provide services during non-school hours or when school is not in session;
2. Waivers of the requirement to make AYP determinations; and
3. Waivers of requirements pertaining to Title I, Part A within-district allocations.
(b) 119 waivers extending the period in which funds were available for obligation: 30 waivers extending the period for State-administered ESEA formula grant programs that received fiscal year (FY) 2011 funds under the regular appropriation or FY 2009 funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), one waiver extending the period for the 21st CCLC, 84 waivers for school improvement activities, and four waivers extending the period for the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Formula Grant Program funds;
(c) Three waivers allowing SEAs to approve schools or LEAs identified as in need of improvement to become supplemental educational services (SES) providers;
(d) Two waivers pertaining to school eligibility requirements and the definition of persistently lowest-achieving schools;
(e) Eight waivers of requirements related to State academic standards or assessments: Three waivers allowing extensions of the growth model pilot; four waivers related to the substitution of standards or assessments; and one waiver permitting the use of annual measureable achievement objectives (AMOs) to make AYP determination based on assessments administered the previous year;
(f) 45 waivers allowing SEAs to waive the carryover limitation more than once every three years for their Title I, Part A allocation; and
(g) One waiver of the requirement that an LEA provide parents of eligible students with notice of their public school choice options at least 14 days before the start of school year.
The Department waived the requirements in section 1111(b)(2)(E)-(H) of the ESEA that prescribe how an SEA establishes AMOs for determining AYP to ensure that all students met or exceeded the State's proficient level of academic achievement on the State's assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics no later than the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Under this waiver, an SEA no longer needed to follow the statutory procedures for setting AMOs to use in determining AYP. Instead, an SEA had flexibility to develop new ambitious but achievable AMOs in reading/language arts and mathematics in order to provide meaningful goals to guide support and improvement efforts for the State, LEAs, schools, and student subgroups.
The Department waived the requirements in section 1116(b) of the ESEA for an LEA to identify for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, as appropriate, a Title I school that failed, for two consecutive years or more, to make AYP, and for a school so identified and its LEA to take certain improvement actions. Under this waiver, an LEA was no longer required to identify respective Title I schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, and neither the LEA nor its schools were required to take statutorily required improvement actions, including providing public school choice and SES to eligible
The Department waived the requirements in section 1116(c) of the ESEA for an SEA to identify for improvement or corrective action, as appropriate, an LEA that, for two consecutive years or more, failed to make AYP, and neither the LEA nor the SEA was required to take statutorily required improvement actions. An LEA was also exempt from associated administrative and reporting requirements related to LEA improvement.
The Department waived the requirements in sections 6213(b) and 6224(e) of the ESEA that limited participation in, and use of funds under, the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) and RLIS programs based on whether an LEA made AYP and was complying with the requirements in section 1116 of the ESEA. Under the waiver, an LEA that received SRSA or RLIS funds had flexibility to use those funds for any authorized purpose regardless of the LEA's AYP status.
Provisions waived: Sections 6213(b) and 6224(e) of the ESEA.
The Department waived the requirement in section 1114(a)(1) of the ESEA that a school have a poverty percentage of 40 percent or more in order to operate a schoolwide program. Under this waiver, an LEA had flexibility to operate a schoolwide program in a Title I school that did not meet the 40 percent poverty threshold if the SEA identified the school as a priority school or a focus school, and the LEA implemented interventions consistent with the turnaround principles or interventions that were based on the needs of the students in the school and designed to enhance the entire educational program in the school, as appropriate.
The Department waived the requirement in section 1003(a) of the ESEA for an SEA to distribute funds
The Department waived the provision in section 1117(c)(2)(A) of the ESEA that authorized an SEA to reserve Title I, Part A funds to reward a Title I school that (1) significantly closed the achievement gap between subgroups in the school; or (2) exceeded AYP for two or more consecutive years. Under this waiver, an SEA had flexibility to use funds reserved under section 1117(c)(2)(A) of the ESEA to provide financial rewards to any reward school, if the SEA determined such school was most appropriate to receive a financial reward.
The Department waived the requirements in section 2141(a) through (c) of the ESEA for an LEA and SEA to comply with certain requirements for improvement plans regarding highly qualified teachers. Under the waiver, an LEA that did not meet its HQT target did not have to develop an improvement plan under section 2141 of the ESEA and had flexibility in how it used its Title I and Title II funds. An SEA was exempt from the requirements regarding its role in the implementation of those plans, including the requirement that it enter into agreements with LEAs on the use of funds and the requirement that it provide technical assistance to LEAs on their plans. This flexibility allowed an SEA and LEA to focus on developing and implementing more meaningful evaluation and support systems.
The Department waived the limitations in section 6123 of the ESEA that limited the amount of funds an SEA or LEA may transfer from certain ESEA programs to other ESEA programs. Under this waiver, an SEA and its LEAs had flexibility to transfer up to 100 percent of the funds received under the authorized programs among those programs and into Title I, Part A programs. Moreover, to minimize burden at the State and local levels, the SEA was not required to notify the Department, and its participating LEAs were not required to notify the SEA, prior to transferring funds.
The Department waived the requirements in section 1003(g)(4) of the
The Department waived requirements in sections 4201(b)(1)(A) and 4204(b)(2)(A) of the ESEA that restricted the activities provided by a community learning center under the 21st CCLC program to activities provided only during non-school hours or periods when school was not in session (
The Department waived the requirements in section 1116(a)(1)(A)-(B) and (c)(1)(A) of the ESEA that required LEAs and SEAs to make determinations of AYP for schools and LEAs, respectively. Instead, an SEA and its LEAs had to report on their report cards performance against the AMOs for all subgroups identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA, and use performance against the AMOs to support continuous improvement in Title I schools.
The Department waived the requirements in section 1113(a)(3)-(4) of the ESEA that required an LEA to serve eligible schools under Title I in rank order of poverty and to allocate Title I, Part A funds based on that rank ordering. Under this waiver, an LEA had flexibility to serve with Title I funds a Title I-eligible high school with a graduation rate below 60 percent that the SEA identified as a priority school even if that school did not rank sufficiently high to be served based solely on the school's poverty rate.
A. The Department granted waivers for ESEA State-administered formula grant programs extending until September 30, 2014, the period of availability for FY 2011 Title I, Part A funds reserved for school improvement activities under section 1003(a) of the ESEA.
B. The Department granted waivers for ESEA State-administered formula
C. Waivers extending the period of availability of SIG program funds awarded under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
1. Extended the period of availability of FY 2009 SIG funds until September 30, 2014.
2. Extended the period of availability of FY 2010 SIG funds.
a. Extension granted until June 1, 2013.
b. Extension granted until August 1, 2013.
c. Extension granted until September 30, 2013.
d. Extension granted until September 30, 2014.
3. Extended the period of availability of FY 2011 SIG funds.
a. Extension granted until September 30, 2014.
b. Extension granted until September 30, 2015.
4. Extended the period of availability of FY 2012 SIG funds.
a. Extension granted until September 30, 2015.
b. Extension granted until September 30, 2016.
5. Extended the period of availability of FY 2013 SIG funds.
a. Extension granted until September 30, 2016.
D. Waivers for the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Grant Program extending the period of availability until December 31, 2013 of FY 2010 funds awarded under Part E, Section 1502 of the ESEA.
E. Waivers for the 21st CCLC program extending the period of availability of FY 2010 funds until September 30, 2013.
The Department permitted SEAs to approve a school or LEA identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring to serve as a provider of SES.
The Department allowed SEAs to: (A) Waive the school eligibility requirements by replacing the list of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools with their list of priority schools; and (B) replace the definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools” with the State's definition of “priority schools.”
A. Two-year extension of waiver permitting SEAs to use their Growth Model Pilots in making accountability determinations based on assessments administered through the 2013-2014 school year.
B. Waivers allowing substitution of standards or assessments.
Allowed Kansas to permit McPherson Unified School District, Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools and the Clifton-Clyde Unified School District to: (i) Administer the ACT in high school and the EXPLORE in grade 8 in lieu of the Kansas State assessments; and (ii) use the results of those assessments for accountability purposes.
C. Waiver permitting the use of AMOs to make AYP determinations based on assessments administered the previous year.
Waiver to permit an SEA to waive the carryover limitation more than once within three years for an LEA that needs the additional waiver because of its receipt of Title I, Part A ARRA funds.
The Department granted an SEA a waiver to postpone notice of public school choice options beyond 14 days before the start of the school year to parents of eligible children attending schools that—
A. Were newly identified for improvement for the school year; or
B. Made AYP in the previous year, but did not exit improvement status.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
In this notice, we announce the waivers that the U.S. Department of Education (Department) granted during calendar year 2012 under the waiver authority of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (ESEA), including waivers related to flexibility granted to States in exchange for State-led reforms (ESEA flexibility).
The ESEA requires that the Department publish in the
Kia Weems, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W341, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-2221 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In 2012, the Department granted waivers through an initiative known as ESEA flexibility to 35 States from ten specific provisions of the ESEA in exchange for a rigorous and comprehensive State-developed plan designed to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction.
We granted:
(a) ESEA flexibility: The Department granted the following ten waivers to 35 SEAs under ESEA flexibility:
1. Flexibility Regarding the 2013-2014 Timeline for Determining Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP);
2. Flexibility in Implementation of School Improvement Requirements;
3. Flexibility in Implementation of Local Educational Agency (LEA) Improvement Requirements;
4. Flexibility for Rural LEAs;
5. Flexibility for Schoolwide Programs;
6. Flexibility to Support School Improvement;
7. Flexibility for Reward Schools;
8. Flexibility Regarding Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Improvement Plans;
9. Flexibility to Transfer Certain Funds; and
10. Flexibility to Use School Improvement Grant (SIG) Funds to Support Priority Schools.
In addition to waiving the ten provisions listed above, the Department granted three optional waivers under ESEA flexibility related to the following:
1. Granted waivers to 23 States under the Flexibility in the Use of Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) Program Funds;
2. Granted waivers to 33 States under the Flexibility Regarding Making AYP Determinations; and
3. Granted waivers to 33 States under the Flexibility Regarding Within-District Title I Allocations;
(b) 73 waivers extending the period during which funds were available for obligation: 11 waivers extending the period for ESEA State-administered formula grant programs that received fiscal year (FY) 2009 funds under the regular appropriation; 14 waivers extending the period for ESEA State-administered formula grant programs that received FY 2009 funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA); one waiver under the Enhancing Education Through Technology (Ed-Tech) Program; one waiver under the Migrant Education Consortium Incentive Grant Program; two waivers under the Consolidated Grant funds for Insular Areas; 38 waivers for school improvement activities for certain fiscal years' funds; and six waivers extending the period for the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Formula Grant Program funds;
(c) 21 waivers relating to school improvement requirements: Three waivers pertaining to school eligibility requirements and the definition of persistently lowest-achieving schools; and 18 waivers granting additional time to meet the teacher and principal evaluation requirement (11 for cohort 1 schools and seven for cohort 2 schools);
(d) 11 waivers of requirements related to State academic standards or assessments: Three waivers allowing substitution of standards or assessments; and eight waivers permitting use of annual measurable objectives (AMOs) to make AYP determinations based on assessments administered in the previous school year;
(e) One waiver of the five percent cap on Title I funds an LEA may reserve to provide financial incentives and rewards to teachers in schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring;
(f) Two schoolwide poverty threshold waivers permitting specific schools with less than 40 percent poverty the flexibility to operate a schoolwide program;
(g) Four waivers of the requirement to provide parents notice of public school choice options at least 14 days before the start of the school year;
(h) Two new waivers and one continuation allowing LEAs both to provide SES to eligible students attending schools in the first year of improvement that received funding under Title I, Part A and to count the costs of doing so toward meeting the LEAs' “20 percent obligation”;
(i) Six waivers allowing SEAs or LEAs to approve LEAs or schools, respectively, identified as in need of improvement to become SES providers;
(j) Eight waivers allowing SEAs to waive the carryover limitation more than once every three years for their Title I, Part A allocation received under ARRA;
(k) One waiver of the third of three annual measureable achievement objectives (AMAO 3) under Title III allowing the State to use the same targets used to determine AYP for Title I in place of the State's AMAO 3; and
(l) Four waivers related to rural programs: Two waivers allowing SEAs to provide equitable services for private school students and teachers under the Rural and Low-Income School Program (RLIS) and two waivers allowing SEAs to meet the academic achievement assessment requirement in an alternative manner under RLIS.
The Department waived the requirements in section 1111(b)(2)(E)-(H) of the ESEA that prescribe how an SEA establishes AMOs for determining AYP to ensure that all students met or exceeded the State's proficient level of academic achievement on the State's assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics no later than the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Under this waiver, an SEA no longer needed to follow the statutory procedures for setting AMOs to use in determining AYP. Instead, an SEA had flexibility to develop new ambitious but achievable AMOs in reading/language arts and mathematics in order to provide meaningful goals to guide support and improvement efforts for the State, LEAs, schools, and student subgroups.
The Department waived the requirements in section 1116(b) of the ESEA for an LEA to identify for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, as appropriate, a Title I school that failed, for two consecutive years or more, to make AYP, and for a school so identified and its LEA to take certain improvement actions. Under this waiver, an LEA was no longer required to identify respective Title I schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, and neither the LEA nor its schools were required to take statutorily required improvement actions, including providing public school choice and supplemental educational services (SES) to eligible students. An LEA was also exempt from administrative and reporting requirements related to school improvement.
The Department waived the requirements in section 1116(c) of the ESEA for an SEA to identify for improvement or corrective action, as appropriate, an LEA that, for two consecutive years or more, failed to make AYP, and neither the LEA nor the SEA was required to take statutorily required improvement actions. An LEA was also exempt from associated administrative and reporting requirements related to LEA improvement.
The Department waived the requirements in sections 6213(b) and 6224(e) of the ESEA that limited participation in, and use of funds under, the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) and RLIS programs based on whether an LEA made AYP and was complying with the requirements in section 1116 of the ESEA. Under the waiver, an LEA that received SRSA or RLIS funds had flexibility to use those funds for any authorized purpose regardless of the LEA's AYP status.
The Department waived the requirement in section 1114(a)(1) of the ESEA that a school have a poverty percentage of 40 percent or more in order to operate a schoolwide program. Under this waiver, an LEA had flexibility to operate a schoolwide program in a Title I school that did not meet the 40 percent poverty threshold if the SEA identified the school as a priority school or a focus school, and the LEA implemented interventions consistent with the turnaround principles or interventions that were based on the needs of the students in the school and designed to enhance the entire educational program in the school, as appropriate.
The Department waived the requirement in section 1003(a) of the ESEA for an SEA to distribute funds reserved under that section only to LEAs with schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. Under this waiver, an SEA had flexibility to allocate ESEA section 1003(a) funds to an LEA in order to serve any priority or focus school, if the SEA determined such school was most in need of additional support.
The Department waived the provision in section 1117(c)(2)(A) of the ESEA that authorized an SEA to reserve Title, Part A funds to reward a Title I school that (1) significantly closed the achievement gap between subgroups in the school; or (2) exceeded AYP for two or more consecutive years. Under this waiver, an SEA had flexibility to use funds reserved under section 1117(c)(2)(A) of the ESEA to provide financial rewards to any reward school, if the SEA determined such school was most appropriate to receive a financial reward.
The Department waived the requirements in section 2141(a) through (c) of the ESEA for an LEA and SEA to comply with certain requirements for improvement plans regarding highly qualified teachers. Under the waiver, an LEA that did not meet its HQT target did not have to develop an improvement plan under section 2141 of the ESEA and had flexibility in how it used its Title I and Title II funds. An SEA was exempt from the requirements regarding its role in the implementation of those plans, including the requirement that it enter into agreements with LEAs on the use of funds and the requirement that it provide technical assistance to LEAs on their plans. This flexibility allowed an SEA and LEA to focus on developing and implementing more meaningful evaluation and support systems.
The Department waived the limitations in section 6123 of the ESEA that limited the amount of funds an SEA or LEA may transfer from certain ESEA programs to other ESEA programs. Under this waiver, an SEA and its LEAs had flexibility to transfer up to 100 percent of the funds received under the authorized programs among those programs and into Title I, Part A. Moreover, to minimize burden at the State and local levels, the SEA was not required to notify the Department, and its participating LEAs were not required to notify the SEA, prior to transferring funds.
The Department waived the requirements in section 1003(g)(4) of the ESEA and the definition of a Tier I
The 35 applicants listed below were granted waivers under ESEA flexibility:
The Department waived requirements in sections 4201(b)(1)(A) and 4204(b)(2)(A) of the ESEA that restricted the activities provided by a community learning center under the 21st CCLC program to activities provided only during non-school hours or periods when school was not in session (
The Department waived the requirements in section 1116(a)(1)(A)-(B) and (c)(1)(A) of the ESEA that required LEAs and SEAs to make determinations of AYP for schools and LEAs, respectively. Under this waiver, an SEA and its LEAs were no longer required to make AYP determinations for LEAs and schools, respectively. Instead, an SEA and its LEAs had to report on their report cards performance against the AMOs for all subgroups identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA, and use performance against the AMOs to support continuous improvement in Title I schools.
The Department waived the requirements in section 1113(a)(3)-(4) of the ESEA that required an LEA to serve eligible schools under Title I in rank order of poverty and to allocate Title I, Part A funds based on that rank ordering. Under this waiver, an LEA had flexibility to serve with Title I funds a Title I-eligible high school with a graduation rate below 60 percent that the SEA identified as a priority school even if that school did not rank sufficiently high to be served based solely on the school's poverty rate.
Extended until September 30, 2012, the period of availability of funds under certain grant programs.
Extended until September 30, 2012, the period of availability of funds under certain grant programs.
Extended until September 30, 2013, the period of availability of FY 2010 (non-ARRA) funds awarded under the Title II, Part D (Ed-Tech) grant program.
Extended until September 30, 2012, the period of availability of FY 2009 funds awarded under the Title I, Part C (Migrant Education Consortium Incentive Grant) grant program.
Extended until September 30, 2014, the period of availability of FY 2012 funds awarded under Title I, Part A, Subpart 2, Section 1121(b) and (c) (Grants to the Outlying Areas)
Extended the period of availability of FY 2009 SIG funds awarded under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
Extended the period of availability of FY 2010 SIG funds awarded under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
Extended the period of availability of FY 2011 SIG funds awarded under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
Extended the period of availability of FY 2010 funds awarded under Title I, Part E, Section 1502 of the ESEA.
Waived the school eligibility requirements to enable a State to replace its list of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools with its list of priority schools and to replace the definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools” with the State's definition of “priority schools.”
Allowed SEAs to permit an LEA that was implementing during the 2010-2011 school year a transformation model with SIG funds, which required development and implementation of high-quality evaluation systems, to have additional time to meet the teacher and principal evaluation requirements in schools that were not able to do so that year.
Allowed the Kansas State Department of Education to permit McPherson Unified School District (MUSD), Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools (KCKPS), and the Clifton-Clyde Unified School District (Clifton-Clyde) to—
(1) Administer the ACT in grade 12 and the EXPLORE in grade 8 in lieu of the Kansas State assessments; and
(2) Use the results of those assessments for accountability purposes.
Allowed Kansas to—
(1) Administer only the Algebra I end-of-course (EOC) assessment to any middle school student who took that
(2) Administer the Geometry EOC assessment to any 8th grade student who took Algebra I in 7th grade and Geometry in 8th grade and to use the results of that assessment in middle school accountability determinations; and
(3) Assess students who took Algebra I or Geometry in middle school with the Algebra II EOC assessment in high school and use those results for high school accountability purposes.
Allowed Tennessee to—
(1) Use, with respect to a student who was not yet enrolled in high school but who took Algebra I or English II and the corresponding EOC assessment, the student's score on that assessment for accountability purposes for the grade in which the student was enrolled; and
(2) Use EOC assessments for Algebra II and English III for high school accountability purposes for those students who take Algebra I or English II, respectively, prior to entering high school.
Permitted SEAs to use the same AMOs to make AYP determinations based on assessments administered in the 2011-2012 school year that were used to make such determinations based on assessments administered in the 2010-2011 school year.
Permitted the Hillsborough County Public Schools (Florida) to reserve up to 6.6 percent of its FY 2012 Title I allocation for rewards and incentives in the 43 schools identified by the LEA.
Permitted Dunn School and Memorial School in Maine's Regional School Unit/Maine School Administrative District #15 (MSAD #15) to become Title I, Part A schoolwide program schools with percentages of low-income students of less than 40 percent.
Permitted Piedmont Valley Elementary (Piedmont) in South Dakota to be eligible to operate a schoolwide program with less than 40 percent of students being from low-income families.
Allowed SEAs to provide notice of public school choice options less than 14 days before the start of the school year to parents of eligible children attending schools that were newly identified for improvement for the 2011-2012 school year or made AYP in the previous year, but did not exit improvement status.
1.
•
•
1.
•
•
1.
•
•
2.
•
•
3.
•
•
4.
•
•
Waiver to permit an SEA to waive the carryover limitation more than once within three years for an LEA that needs the additional waiver because of its receipt of Title I, Part A ARRA funds.
1.
•
•
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
In this notice, we announce the waivers that the U.S. Department of Education (Department) granted during calendar year 2016 under the waiver authority in section 8401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act.
The ESEA requires that the Department publish in the
Kia Weems, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W341, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-2221 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In 2016, the Department granted a total of 111 waivers to States under the waiver authority in section 8401 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. We granted:
(a)
(b)
(c) One waiver permitting an LEA to serve a Title I-eligible high school with a graduation rate below 60 percent that the SEA identified as a priority school;
(d) One waiver permitting local educational agencies (LEAs) to operate a Title I schoolwide program in a priority school or a focus school that has less than 40 percent poverty and is implementing a schoolwide intervention; and
(e) Four waivers allowing an SEA to waive the carryover limitation for an LEA that needs an additional waiver beyond what the SEA is authorized to grant.
A. Sixty-six waivers to extend the period of availability of School Improvement Grant (SIG) funds.
1. Extended the period of availability of fiscal year (FY) 2011 SIG funds awarded to two States under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
2. Extended the period of availability of FY 2012 SIG funds awarded to three States under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
3. Extended the period of availability of FY 2013 SIG funds awarded to seven States under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
4. Extended the period of availability of FY 2014 SIG funds awarded to eight States under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
5. Extended the period of availability of FY 2016 SIG funds awarded to 46 States under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
B. One waiver to extend the period of availability of funds for Improving Teacher Quality awarded under Title II, Part A of the ESEA.
C. One waiver to extend the period of availability of funds for Migrant Education related activities awarded under section Title I, Part C of the ESEA.
D. Three waivers extending the period of availability of funds for the 21st CCLC program under Title IV, Part B of the ESEA.
1. Extended the period of availability of FY 2012 funds reserved under Title IV, Part B of the ESEA made available for the 21st CCLC program.
2. Extended the period of availability of FY 2013 funds reserved under Title IV, Part B of the ESEA made available for the 21st CCLC program.
F. Two waivers to extend the period of availability of Mathematics and Science Partnerships funds.
1. Extended the period of availability of FY 2012 funds awarded to one State under Title II, Part B of the ESEA.
2. Extended the period of availability of FY 2013 funds awarded to one State under Title II, Part B of the ESEA.
A. One waiver allowing substitution of standards or assessments.
B. Three waivers of the requirement for an SEA to administer high-quality student academic assessments.
C. One waiver of reporting requirements related to standards and assessments.
D. Twenty-six waivers allowing States to have assessments that did not asses all content standards.
One waiver granting flexibility regarding within-district Title I allocations.
One waiver allowing a Title I schoolwide program in a school below the 40 percent poverty threshold.
A. Four waivers authorizing SEAs to waive the carryover limitation for an LEA more than once every three years.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
In this notice, we announce the waivers that the U.S. Department of Education (Department) granted during calendar year 2015 under the waiver authority in section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (ESEA), including waivers related to flexibilities granted to States in exchange for State-led reforms (ESEA flexibility).
The ESEA requires that the Department publish in the
Kia Weems, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W341, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-2221 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In 2015, the Department granted waivers under ESEA flexibility to 43 States under the waiver authority in section 9401 of the ESEA, in exchange for rigorous and comprehensive State-developed plans designed to improve student academic achievement and increase the quality of instruction. An additional 93 waivers that were not part of ESEA flexibility also were granted under the waiver authority in section 9401 of the ESEA. We granted:
a. Ten waivers under ESEA flexibility to each of 43 States granting flexibility from ESEA requirements to improve student academic achievement and increase the quality of instruction:
1. Allowing SEAs flexibility to select one of three options for setting new ambitious, but achievable annual measurable objectives (AMOs);
2. Allowing flexibility in implementation of school improvement requirements to relieve local educational agencies (LEAs) of the requirement to identify schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, as appropriate, and to take certain improvement actions in identified schools;
3. Allowing flexibility in implementation of LEA improvement requirements to relieve SEAs of the requirement to identify LEAs for improvement or corrective action, as appropriate, and to take certain improvement actions for identified LEAs;
4. Granting flexibility for rural LEAs;
5. Permitting LEAs to operate a schoolwide program in a priority school or a focus school that does not meet the 40 percent poverty threshold and is implementing a schoolwide intervention;
6. Allowing SEAs flexibility to distribute school improvement funds to LEAs for use in priority and focus schools;
7. Allowing funds reserved for State awards program to go to any reward school;
8. Relating to highly qualified teacher (HQT) improvement plan requirements;
9. Relating to limitations on the transferability of certain funds; and
10. Permitting SEAs flexibility to award School Improvement Grant (SIG) funds to an LEA to implement one of the four SIG models in any priority school.
In addition to waiving the 10 provisions listed above, the Department granted three optional waivers to 43 States under ESEA flexibility related to the following:
1. 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) requirements, allowing SEAs flexibility to permit community learning centers to use 21st CCLC funds to support expanded learning time during the school day in addition to activities during non-school hours or periods when school is not in session;
2. Requirements to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations; and
3. Requirements pertaining to Title I, Part A within-district allocations;
b. Forty-five waivers extending the period in which funds were available for obligation: 40 waivers for school improvement activities, one waiver for Consolidated Grant funds for Insular Areas, one waiver for State assessment activities, and three waivers extending the period for SIG carryover funds;
c. One waiver granting LEAs additional time to meet teacher and principal evaluation requirements for cohort 5 SIG schools;
d. Five waivers allowing SEAs to approve schools or LEAs identified as in need of improvement to become supplemental educational services (SES) providers;
e. Ten waivers of requirements pertaining to State academic standards or assessments: Four waivers allowing substitution of standards or assessments and six waivers exempting SEAs or LEAs from reporting assessment or accountability determinations;
f. Fourteen waivers of the third of three annual measureable achievement objectives (AMAOs 3) under Title III, due to lack of assessment data in the 2014-2015 school year;
g. Two waivers allowing SEAs flexibility to distribute section 1003(a) funds to LEAs for use in priority and focus schools;
h. Five waivers of the requirement to make AYP determinations;
i. Six waivers allowing LEAs to carry out significant education reforms to improve student achievement;
j. Two waivers authorizing an SEA to waive the carryover limitation for an LEA that needs an additional waiver;
k. One waiver of the requirement to provide parents notice of public school choice options at least 14 days before the start of the school year;
l. One waiver pertaining to school support and recognition allowing flexibility in the use of funds reserved for State awards program to go to any reward school; and
m. One waiver enabling LEAs to use the term “highly qualified teacher” to refer to a teacher who received a summative rating of “effective,” “highly effective,” or “exemplary” and earned at least 50 percent of the possible student achievement measures in the State's teacher evaluation and support system.
Allowed SEAs flexibility to develop new ambitious but achievable AMOs in reading/language arts and mathematics in order to provide meaningful goals that will be used to guide support and improvement efforts for the State, LEAs, schools, and student subgroups.
1. Granted flexibility relating to the requirement for LEAs to identify schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring and corresponding requirements. Section 1116(b)(13), which requires LEAs to permit a child who has transferred to remain in the choice school through the highest grade in the school, was not waived.
2. Waivers granting flexibility of the requirement for SEAs and LEAs to take a variety of actions to offer SES to eligible students in schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
Granted flexibility with respect to the requirement that SEAs identify LEAs for improvement and corrective action and take certain action in those LEAs.
1. Allowed flexibility to use Small, Rural School Achievement Program (SRSA) funds regardless of the AYP status of the LEA so that LEAs receiving SRSA funds that fail to make AYP may continue to use these funds.
2. Allowed SEAs flexibility to permit an LEA to continue to receive a Rural and Low-Income School program (RLIS) grant even if the LEA fails to make AYP.
Waivers permitted LEAs to operate a schoolwide program in a priority school or a focus school that does not meet the schoolwide poverty threshold of 40 percent and is implementing a schoolwide intervention.
Waivers regarding the State-level reservations to support school improvement, allowing SEAs flexibility to distribute reserved funds to LEAs for use in priority and focus schools. The required reservation was not waived; the waiver merely permitted an SEA to distribute the funds to schools that were not identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
Allowed funds reserved for State awards programs to go to any reward school.
Waived the requirements regarding HQT improvement plans and related technical assistance and provided flexibility with respect to the use of Title I, Part A funds for paraprofessionals.
1. Permitted the SEA to transfer up to 100 percent of the amount from a covered program into another covered program or into Title I, Part A.
2. Permitted LEAs flexibility in percentage limitations as well as in the use of transferred funds.
3. Waivers of the requirements relating to modification of plans and notice of transfer.
4. Permitted LEAs flexibility to exclude funds transferred into Title I, Part A from the base in calculating any set-aside percentages.
Permitted SEAs to award SIG funds to an LEA to implement one of the four SIG models (Turnaround, Restart, Closure, Transformation) in any priority school.
Permitted an eligible entity that received funds under the 21st CCLC program to use those funds to support expanded learning time during the school day, week, or year in addition to activities during non-school hours or periods when school is not in session.
Waived the requirements to make AYP determinations. Instead, an SEA and its LEAs would report on their report cards performance against the AMOs for all subgroups identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA, and would use performance against the AMOs to support continuous improvement in Title I schools.
Permitted an LEA to serve with Title I funds a Title I-eligible high school with a graduation rate below 60 percent that the SEA identified as a priority school even if that school did not rank sufficiently high to be served based solely on the school's poverty rate.
1. Extended the period of availability of fiscal year (FY) 2010 SIG funds awarded to two States under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
2. Extended the period of availability of FY 2011 SIG funds awarded to two States under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
3. Extended the period of availability of FY 2012 SIG funds awarded to seven States under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
4. Extended the period of availability of FY 2013 SIG funds awarded to two States under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
5. Extended the period of availability of FY 2014 SIG funds awarded to 25 States under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
One-year waiver of the achievement component of AMAO 3 to permit LEAs receiving Title III subgrants that did not have assessment data to demonstrate they met the AMO component of AMAO 3 for the 2014-2015 school year due to the transition to new assessments to continue the same Title III interventions in the 2015-2016 school year that they implemented in the 2014-2015 school year.
Waivers related to State-level reservations to support school improvement, allowing SEAs flexibility to distribute funds to LEAs for use in priority and focus schools. The required reservation was not waived; the waiver merely permitted an SEA to distribute the funds to schools that were not identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
One-year waiver of the statutory and regulatory requirements under Title I, Part A of the ESEA that required an LEA and an SEA, respectively, to use the results from the State's academic assessments to make AYP determinations for schools and LEAs.
Waivers to carry out significant education reforms to improve student achievement for school year 2015-2016.
Waivers authorizing SEAs to waive the carryover limitation for an LEA that needed an additional waiver beyond what the SEA was otherwise authorized to grant.
Waived the requirement for an LEA to provide parents of eligible students with notice as to their public school choice options at least 14 days before the start of the school year. This waiver applied only to the notice required for parents of children attending the three Title I schools that either were newly identified for improvement for the 2015-2016 school year or that could have exited improvement, corrective action, or restructuring based on the assessments administered in the 2014-2015 school year, but did not.
Waiver allowed funds reserved for State awards programs to go to any reward school and extended the period of availability of Wisconsin's FY 2013 Title I school rewards programs allocation until September 30, 2016.
A waiver allowing, through the 2018-2019 school year, New Mexico's LEAs to apply to use the term “highly qualified teacher” to refer to a teacher who received a summative rating of “effective,” “highly effective,” or “exemplary” and, accordingly, has earned at least 50 percent of the possible student achievement measures in New Mexico's teacher evaluation and support system, in lieu of meeting requirements in section 9101(23)(C)(ii) of the ESEA regarding subject-matter expertise.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), DOE.
Notice of document availability.
Copies of the Bonneville Purchasing Instructions (BPI), which contain the policy and establish the procedures that BPA uses in the solicitation, award, and administration of its purchases of goods and services, including construction, are available in printed form or at the following Internet address:
Copies of the Bonneville Financial Assistance Instructions (BFAI), which contain the policy and establish the procedures that BPA uses in the solicitation, award, and administration of financial assistance instruments (principally grants and cooperative agreements), are available in printed form or available at the following Internet address:
Unbound copies of the BPI or BFAI may be obtained by sending a request to the Head of the Contracting Activity, Routing CGP-7, Bonneville Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208-3621.
Head of the Contracting Activity (503) 230-5498.
BPA was established in 1937 as a Federal Power Marketing Agency in the Pacific Northwest. BPA operations are financed from rate payer revenues rather than annual appropriations. BPA's purchasing operations are conducted under 16 U.S.C. 832
BPA's solicitations and contracts include notice of applicability and availability of the BPI and the BFAI, as appropriate, for offerors to obtain information on particular purchases or financial assistance transactions.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and notice of floodplain and wetlands assessment.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), BPA intends to prepare an EIS to determine whether to fund the Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Nation's proposal to upgrade facilities at the Klickitat Hatchery. The hatchery produces spring and fall Chinook salmon and coho salmon, and is funded by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Mitchell Act. It is operated jointly by the Yakama Nation and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The hatchery is located in Klickitat County on property owned by WDFW, about seven miles east of Glenwood, Washington. The hatchery was built in 1954 and most of the facilities have not been renovated since then.
The one-time upgrades would include improving surface and groundwater water intakes, discharge piping, and pumps; rebuilding the pollution abatement system; updating sections of the hatchery building; and adding rearing tanks, a storage building, and possibly staff residences. The proposed upgrades would update old facilities and would facilitate increased production of spring Chinook by the Yakama Nation. BPA is not proposing to fund fish production or to take over any Mitchell Act funding for the hatchery. NMFS will be a cooperating agency on the EIS.
In accordance with U.S. Department of Energy floodplain and wetland regulations, BPA will analyze impacts to floodplains and wetlands as well as measures to avoid or minimize potential effects to these resources. The assessment will be included in the EIS.
With this Notice of Intent, BPA is initiating the public scoping process for the EIS. BPA is requesting comments about potential environmental impacts that should be considered as an EIS is prepared.
In addition, BPA is also providing notice of cancellation of DOE/EIS-0424 Klickitat Hatchery Complex Program. Based on public comments on the 2011 draft DOE/EIS-0424, as well as changes in agencies' funding of various activities described in the EIS, BPA is canceling that environmental review process and will focus on the proposed Klickitat Hatchery Upgrades EIS.
Written comments are due to the address below no later than November 27, 2017. Comments may also be made at the scoping meeting to be held on October 25, 2017 at the address below.
Comments on the proposed scope of the Draft EIS and requests to be placed on the project mailing list may be mailed by letter to Bonneville Power Administration, Public Affairs Office—DKE-7, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208-3621, or sent by fax to 503-230-4019. You may also call BPA's toll-free comment hotline at 1-800-622-4519 and leave a message (please include the name of the project), or submit comments online at
On October 25, 2017, a scoping meeting will be held from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Lyle Lions Community Center, Highway 14 and Third Street, Lyle, Washington 98365. At this informal open-house meeting, BPA will provide project information and maps and will make members of the project team available to answer questions and accept oral and written comments.
David Kennedy, Executive Manager Environmental Planning and Analysis, Bonneville Power Administration, EC-4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208-3621; toll-free telephone 1-800-282-3713; direct telephone 503-230-3769; or email
The Yakama Nation is proposing the Klickitat Hatchery upgrades to update old facilities and to facilitate a possible increase in production of spring Chinook salmon. Although the Klickitat population of spring Chinook is not listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), WDFW considers it depressed due to chronically low adult returns. On average, the Klickitat spring Chinook run comprises approximately 75% hatchery and 25% natural-origin fish. In addition, since 1994, low hatchery productivity has limited the average annual harvest in sport and Tribal fisheries in the Klickitat basin to 840 fish, although the overall project goal for in-basin sport and Tribal harvest is 3,000 adults annually.
BPA's proposed funding of the Klickitat Hatchery upgrades would
In addition, on May 2, 2008, BPA, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers signed the 2008 Columbia Basin Fish Accords Memorandum of Agreement with the Three Treaty Tribes: The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation. The agreement includes funding for this hatchery project, subject to compliance with NEPA and other environmental review requirements.
The proposal is also consistent with the policy direction in BPA's Fish and Wildlife Implementation Plan EIS, which calls for protecting weak stocks while sustaining overall populations of fish for their economic and cultural value, including long-term harvest opportunities.
Upgrades at the existing hatchery would include rehabilitating existing water intakes at Upper and Lower Indian Ford Springs, updating and rerouting water supply and discharge piping, refurbishing a pump station at an existing surface water intake in the Klickitat River, demolishing the existing pollution abatement pond and converting an existing fall Chinook rearing pond to a pollution abatement pond, replacing the existing adult holding and spawning building, adding circular rearing tanks, building a chemical storage shed, and renovating the existing hatchery building to improve usable space, security, and operations monitoring systems. The total disturbed area would be approximately 16 acres. In addition, BPA might also fund construction of two staff residences.
Upgrades would improve rearing conditions for spring Chinook, would provide the capacity to increase production from 600,000 spring Chinook smolts to 800,000 smolts, and would help the spring Chinook program transition from using only hatchery-raised fish for broodstock (a “segregated” or “isolated” program) to a program that incorporates natural-origin fish in the broodstock (an “integrated” program). Currently, natural-origin spring Chinook from the Klickitat basin have higher survival rates than hatchery fish. Incorporating natural-origin fish into the broodstock is expected to increase the fitness, productivity, survival, and harvest of this species.
Upgrades to the water system would increase the operational flexibility of the facility. Adding river water to the water supply would allow operators to release smolts later in the spring when conditions in the Columbia River are more favorable to smolts migrating to the ocean. The water system upgrades also would reduce long-term maintenance and improve the quality of the hatchery effluent. Energy efficiency measures would be incorporated as possible into facility upgrade designs. BPA is not proposing to fund fish production or to take over any Mitchell Act funding for the hatchery.
BPA will be the lead agency for preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies in addition to NMFS may be identified as the proposed project proceeds through the NEPA process.
BPA has established an extended seven-week scoping period during which concerned members of the public, interest groups, state and local governments, and any other interested parties are invited to comment on the scope of the proposed EIS. Scoping will help BPA ensure that a full range of issues related to this proposal are addressed in the EIS and will help to identify significant or potentially significant impacts that may result from the proposed project.
When completed, the Draft EIS will be circulated for review and comment, and BPA will hold at least one public comment meeting to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. BPA will consider and respond in the Final EIS to comments received on the Draft EIS. BPA's subsequent decision will be documented in a Record of Decision.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is providing notice of disclosure of information which has been submitted to EPA by renewable fuel producers, renewable identification number (“RIN”) generators, third party engineers, obligated parties, and RIN owners that is claimed to be, or has been determined to be, confidential business information (“CBI”), in civil enforcement litigation against NGL Crude Logistics, LLC (f/k/a Gavilon, LLC) and Western Dubuque Biodiesel, LLC. Disclosure is in response to discovery requests from NGL Crude Logistics, LLC (f/k/a Gavilon, LLC) in the litigation styled
Access by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to material, including CBI, discussed in this Notice, is ongoing and expected to continue during the NGL Litigation. The United States does not intend to produce documents containing CBI to NGL until after potentially impacted third parties have an opportunity to inspect the Protective Order. The inspection period will last for fourteen (14) calendar days after publication of this Notice in the
Matthew Kryman, Air Enforcement Division, Office of Civil Enforcement, 1595 Wynkoop Street (8MSU), Denver, CO 80202; telephone number: 303-312-6272; fax number: 303-312-6003; email address:
Entities potentially affected by this action include renewable fuel producers, RIN generators, third party engineers, obligated parties, and RIN owners who have submitted information to EPA that is claimed to be, or has been determined to be, CBI. Potentially affected categories of such entities include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities who may be impacted by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be impacted. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action, consult the person listed in the
The United States has initiated a civil enforcement action alleging that NGL Crude Logistics, LLC (f/k/a Gavilon, LLC) and Western Dubuque Biodiesel, LLC violated Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act and the Renewable Fuel Standard regulations issued thereunder in connection with the sale and repurchase of biodiesel and RINs in calendar year 2011. The United States settled its claims against Western Dubuque Biodiesel, LLC, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa granted the motion to enter the amended consent decree on April 11, 2017. The United States' claims against NGL Crude Logistics, LLC (f/k/a Gavilon, LLC) are still pending. Notice is being provided, pursuant to 40 CFR 2.209(d), to inform affected businesses that EPA intends to transmit certain information, which has been submitted by renewable fuel producers, RIN generators, third party engineers, obligated parties, and RIN owners that is claimed to be, or has been determined to be, CBI, to NGL Crude Logistics, LLC (f/k/a Gavilon, LLC) in this enforcement action. The information includes EPA communications with, and information provided by, renewable fuel producers and RIN generators in connection with petitions under 40 CFR 80.1416 and the production of renewable fuel and generation of RINs. The information also includes EPA communications with, and information provided by, obligated parties and RIN owners regarding specific RIN buys, sells, separations, and retirements. Examples of such information may include EPA registration information; information submitted to the EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS); EMTS RIN generation, transaction, and activity reports; documents mentioning, referring to, or discussing company fuel production activities or RIN generation activities; and non-public petition information submitted under 40 CFR 80.1416.
The treatment of this information is governed by the Protective Order entered into by the United States and NGL Crude Logistics, LLC. Interested third parties may find the Protective Order in the docket for the NGL Litigation, 2:16-cv-1038-LRR, ECF Document No. 68 (N.D. Iowa). The Protective Order governs the distribution of CBI, limits its use to the NGL Litigation, and provides for its return or destruction at the conclusion of the litigation. It also includes a provision that interested third parties may seek additional protections for their CBI. In accordance with 40 CFR 2.209(c-(d), DOJ must disclose such information to the extent required to comply with the discovery obligations of the United States in the NGL Litigation, including its obligations under the Protective Order.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Detergent Gasoline (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1655.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0275) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
Comments must be submitted on or before December 5, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0595 online using
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
James W. Caldwell, Environmental Engineer, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code 6405A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; Telephone: (202) 343-9303; Fax: (202) 343-2802; Email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The EPA maintains a list of certified gasoline detergents at
There are approximately 250 refiners and importers of gasoline, 1,350 blenders of detergent into gasoline or PRC, 8,000 carriers of gasoline or PRC, 200,000 gasoline retail outlets, and 100,000 fleet facilities which handle gasoline. The estimated total annual burden for respondents for this collection is 220,181 hours and $20,180,587, including $335,040 in annualized capital or O&M costs. The estimated total annual Agency burden is 200 hours and $16,400 in labor costs.
The respondents are related to the following major group Standard Industrialization Classification (SIC) codes:
The respondents are related to the following major group NAICS codes:
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the Performance Review Board of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Traci M. DiMartini, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, (202) 663-4306.
Publication of the Performance Review Board (PRB) membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive' s performance by the supervisor, and makes recommendations to the Chair, EEOC, with respect to performance ratings, pay level adjustments and performance awards.
The following are the names and titles of executives appointed to serve as members of the SES PRB. Designated members will serve a 12-month term; which begins on November 1, 2017.
By the direction of the Commission.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Banks of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 635 (a) (1), to determine eligibility of the applicant for Ex-Im Bank assistance.
The Application for Short Term Letter of Credit Export Credit Insurance Policy is used to determine the eligibility of the applicant and the transaction for Export Import Bank assistance under its insurance program. Export Import Bank customers are able to submit this form on paper or electronically.
The application tool can be reviewed at:
Comments must be received on or before December 5, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued Federal Financial Accounting Technical Release (TR) 18,
The Technical Release is available on the FASAB Web site at
Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW., Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before December 5, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
In August 2017, the Commission released an
A challenger seeking to initiate a challenge of one or more areas initially deemed ineligible in the Commission's map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support may do so via the online challenge portal developed by USAC for this purpose (the USAC portal). For each state, a challenger must (1) identify the area(s) it seeks to challenge, (2) submit detailed proof of a lack of unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE coverage in each challenged area in the form of actual outdoor speed test data collected using the standardized parameters specified by the Commission in the
After the challenge window closes, the USAC system will use an automated challenge validation process developed by USAC to validate a challenger's evidence and will determine which challenged areas pass validation and which fail. Once all valid challenges have been identified, a challenged party that chooses to respond to any valid challenge(s) will have a response window within which to submit additional data via the online USAC portal. A challenged party may submit technical information that is probative regarding the validity of a challenger's speed tests (
In conjunction with the qualified 4G LTE data separately collected pursuant to OMB 3060-1242 that will be used to create the map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support, the information collected under this new MF-II challenge process collection will enable the Commission to efficiently resolve disputes concerning the eligibility or ineligibility of an area initially deemed ineligible for MF-II support and establish the final map of areas eligible for such support, thereby furthering the Commission's goal of targeting MF-II support to areas that lack adequate mobile voice and broadband coverage absent subsidies through a transparent process.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10367—Summit Bank, Burlington, Washington (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of Summit Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective October 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and its Continuation on Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This Meeting Will be Closed to the Public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The Depository Library Council (DLC) to the Director, Government Publishing Office (GPO) will meet on Monday, October 16, 2017 through Wednesday, October 18, 2017 in Arlington, Virginia. The sessions will take place from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday and Tuesday and 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., on Wednesday. The meeting will be held at the Doubletree Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Federal Depository Library Program. All sessions are open to the public. The United States Government Publishing Office is in compliance with the requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and meets all Fire Safety Act regulations.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 14, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 10, 2017.
Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Levy, Nassau, Suwannee, and Union Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3382-EM), dated August 28, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 10, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective September 10, 2017.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4338-DR), dated September 15, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 28, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include permanent work under the Public Assistance program for those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 15, 2017.
Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barrow, Ben Hill, Berrien, Brantley, Brooks, Bryan, Bulloch, Burke, Butts, Calhoun, Candler, Clay, Colquitt, Cook, Coweta, Crawford, Crisp, Dawson, Dougherty, Early, Elbert, Emanuel, Evans, Fayette, Forsyth, Franklin, Gilmer, Greene, Habersham, Hall, Hancock, Harris, Hart, Houston, Irwin, Jackson, Jasper, Jeff Davis, Jenkins, Johnson, Jones, Lamar, Laurens, Lincoln, Long, Lumpkin, Macon, Madison, Marion, Meriwether, Miller, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Newton, Oconee, Oglethorpe, Peach, Pickens, Pierce, Pike, Putnam, Quitman, Rabun, Randolph, Rockdale, Schley, Screven, Seminole, Spalding, Stephens, Talbot, Taliaferro, Tattnall, Taylor, Telfair, Toombs, Treutlen, Troup, Turner, Walton, Ware, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Wheeler, Wilcox, Wilkes, and Worth Counties for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
Camden, Charlton, Chatham, Coffee, Glynn, Liberty, and McIntosh Counties for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Seminole Tribe of Florida (FEMA-4341-DR), dated September 27, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued September 27, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 27, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage to the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Tribe), and its associated lands, resulting from Hurricane Irma beginning on September 4, 2017, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation for the Tribe and its associated lands. Direct Federal assistance is authorized. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. For a period of 30 days from the start of the incident period, assistance for emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, is authorized at 100 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funding for debris removal will remain at 75 percent.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Willie G. Nunn, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Seminole Tribe of Florida and associated lands for Individual Assistance.
Seminole Tribe of Florida and associated lands for Public Assistance.
The Seminole Tribe of Florida and associated lands are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4340-DR), dated September 20, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued September 20, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 20, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands resulting from Hurricane Maria beginning on September 16, 2017, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B) under the Public Assistance program in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the territory, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs). Direct Federal assistance is authorized.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, William L. Vogel, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
The island of St. Croix for Individual Assistance.
All islands in the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
All islands in the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4316-DR), dated June 1, 2017, and related determinations.
The amendment was issued on September 21, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
This action terminates the appointment of Albert Lewis as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-3387-EM), dated September 8, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 26, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective September 20, 2017.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-3386-EM), dated September 7, 2017, and related determinations.
The amendment was issued on September 15, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Warren J. Riley, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.
This action terminates the appointment of Willie G. Nunn as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-3385-EM), dated September 5, 2017, and related determinations.
The amendment was issued on September 18, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Willie G. Nunn, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.
This action terminates the appointment of Justó Hernández as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.
The amendment was issued on September 18, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Willie G. Nunn, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.
This action terminates the appointment of Justó Hernández as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4336-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 26, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 10, 2017.
The municipalities of Dorado, Fajardo, and Toa Baja for Individual Assistance.
The municipalities of Cataño, Luquillo, and Vega Baja for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
The municipalities of Dorado, Guarabo, and Naguabo for Public Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4338-DR), dated September 15, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 26, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 15, 2017.
Charlton and Coffee Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 13, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 10, 2017.
Citrus, DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, Indian River, Lake, Marion, Martin, Okeechobee, Osceola, Seminole, Sumter, and Volusia Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4339-DR), dated September 20, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 28, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 26, 2017, the President
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico resulting from Hurricane Maria beginning on September 17, 2017, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
Therefore, I amend my declaration of September 20, 2017, to authorize a 100 percent Federal cost share for debris removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, for 180 days from the date of the declaration.
This adjustment to State and local cost sharing applies only to Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs Assistance (Section 408), and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible costs.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Wyoming (FEMA-4327-DR), dated August 5, 2017, and related determinations.
The change occurred on September 21, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jon Huss, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
This action terminates the appointment of Thomas J. McCool as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-3390-EM), dated September 18, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued September 18, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 18, 2017, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands resulting from Hurricane Maria beginning on September 16, 2017, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, William L. Vogel, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
All islands in the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the Seminole Tribe of Florida (FEMA-3388-EM), dated September 8, 2017, and related determinations.
The amendment was issued on September 18, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Willie G. Nunn, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.
This action terminates the appointment of Justó Hernández as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 16, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 10, 2017.
Dixie and Lafayette Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4340-DR), dated September 20, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 23, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands is
The islands of St. John and St. Thomas for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4335-DR), dated September 7, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 28, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 26, 2017, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands resulting from Hurricane Irma during the period of September 5-7, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
Therefore, I amend my declarations of September 7, 2017 and September 9, 2017, to authorize a 100 percent Federal cost share for debris removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, for 180 days from the start of the incident period.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-3386-EM), dated September 7, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 29, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective September 13, 2017.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 13, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
Brevard, Orange, Pasco, and St. Lucie Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4329-DR), dated August 9 2017, and related determinations.
The amendment was issued on September 21, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
This action terminates the appointment of Albert Lewis as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4339-DR), dated September 20, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued September 20, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 20, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico resulting from Hurricane Maria beginning on September 17, 2017, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B) under the Public Assistance program in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs). Direct Federal assistance is authorized.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Alejandro DeLaCampa, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
The municipalities of Aguas Buenas, Aibonito, Arecibo, Arroyo, Barceloneta, Barranquitas, Bayamón, Caguas, Canóvanas, Carolina, Cataño, Cayey, Ceiba, Ciales, Cidra, Coamo, Comerio, Corozal, Culebra, Dorado, Fajardo, Florida, Guayama, Guaynabo, Gurabo, Humacao, Jayuya, Juana Díaz, Juncos, Las Piedras, Loíza, Luquillo, Manati, Maunabo, Morovis, Naguabo, Naranjito, Orocovis, Patillas, Ponce, Rio Grande, Salinas, San Juan, San Lorenzo, Santa Isabel,
All municipalities in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
All areas within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4338-DR), dated September 15, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 26, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective September 20, 2017.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
This notice advises the public that HUD, as a result of Presidentially declared Major Disaster Declarations (MDD) following Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria has established an expedited process for the review of requests for relief from HUD regulatory and/or administrative requirements (“HUD requirements”) for public housing agencies (PHAs) and Tribes or tribally designated housing entities (TDHEs) that are located in Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Florida, and Georgia. The notice covers MDDs DR-4332, issued on August 25, 2017, DR-4335, issued on September 7, 2017, DR-4336, issued on September 10, 2017, DR-4337, issued on September 10, 2017, DR-4338, issued on September 15, 2017, DR-4339 issued on September 20, 2017 and DR-4340 issued on September 20, 2017. Specifically, these PHAs and Tribes/TDHEs may request waivers of HUD requirements and receive expedited review of such requests. In addition, this notice advises that PHAs, Tribes and TDHEs located in areas covered by MDDs issued during the remainder of 2017 may utilize the flexibilities and expedited waiver process set out by this notice.
Shelia Bethea, Office of Field Operations, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4112, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone number (202) 402-8120. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
From a period beginning on August 23, 2017, areas in Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Florida and Georgia experienced severe storms and flooding from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria. MDDs covering these areas were issued on August 25, 2017, DR-4332,
In order to provide relief from certain HUD requirements governing programs administered by the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) to PHAs and Tribes/THDEs that are located in areas covered by MDDs 4332, 4335, 4336, 4337, 4338, 4339 and 4340 (MDD PHAs; MDD Tribes/TDHEs) HUD is publishing this notice. The notice describes a number of flexibilities that are available to such PHAs and Tribes/TDHEs, lists HUD requirements that HUD is willing to waive upon request from a PHA or Tribe/TDHE, and provides for the expedited review of waiver requests. HUD is publishing this notice to assist MDD PHAs and Tribes/TDHEs in responding to this major disaster declarations and in contributing to long-term recovery. Further, given the number of natural disasters that have occurred and may occur this year, HUD has determined that PHAs, Tribes and TDHEs located in areas covered by MDDs issued during the balance of 2017 may utilize the flexibilities and expedited waiver process set out by this notice. HUD will publish a notice designating areas covered by future MDDs.
The notice is organized as follows:
• Section II describes the flexibilities that are available to MDD PHAs, where such flexibilities are built into statute and/or regulation. MDD PHAs may avail themselves of these flexibilities, following the process described in Section IV of the notice.
• Section III describes requirements of HUD's Indian programs that may be waived.
• Section IV describes certain HUD requirements that, if waived, may facilitate an MDD PHA's ability to participate in relief and recovery efforts. An MDD PHA may request a waiver of a HUD requirement not listed in Section IV and receive expedited review of the request if the MDD PHA demonstrates that the waiver is needed in order to assist in its relief and recovery efforts. An MDD PHA may not adopt any requested waiver prior to receiving HUD approval.
• Section V describes the process HUD has established for MDD PHAs to provide notice to and/or request approval from HUD regarding statutory or regulatory flexibilities and/or to request waivers of HUD requirements. Waiver requests will be handled on an expedited, case-by-case basis. Consistent with section 7(q) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), a regulated party that seeks a waiver of HUD regulations must request a waiver from HUD in writing. HUD will permit other methods of waiver transmission as necessary. The waiver request must specify the need for the waiver. Typically, the request is submitted to the HUD field office, which reviews the request and submits its recommendation to HUD headquarters. HUD headquarters then responds to the regulated party in writing. Since the damage to property and the displacement of families and individuals in the disaster areas is massive, and the need for relief from HUD requirements may be necessary, HUD will expedite the processing of waiver requests from MDD PHAs, providing for concurrent review by the HUD field office and HUD headquarters.
• Section VI States that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
Waiver requests approved by HUD pursuant to this notice will be published in the
HUD is exercising discretionary authority to provide relief from the requirements described in this section. Upon notification to HUD or upon HUD approval, as noted below, relief is granted to MDD PHAs. Relief from the requirements must benefit families affected by the disasters, for example by enabling MDD PHA staff to focus on relief and recovery efforts. Section IV of this notice describes the process an MDD PHA must follow to provide notification to and/or to request approval from HUD. Such notification and/or request must be made by January 4, 2018.
HUD is exercising discretionary authority to provide relief from the requirements described in this section since the damage to property and the displacement of families and individuals is significant and the need to provide regulatory relief in many areas is readily apparent. Upon notification to HUD or upon HUD approval, as noted below, relief is temporarily granted to MDD Tribes/TDHEs. Relief from the requirements must benefit families affected by the disasters, for example by enabling MDD Tribe/TDHE staff to focus on relief and recovery efforts. To avail themselves of the waivers in this section, MDD Tribes/TDHEs must notify their Area Office of Native American Programs (AONAP) in advance of their intent to exercise the waiver, and must keep documentation on file at the Tribe/TDHE of good cause for exercising such waiver. Such notification and/or request must be made by January 4, 2018.
For an MDD PHA, HUD will review requests for waivers of HUD requirements on an expedited basis. This section lists requirements for which HUD anticipates receiving such requests. An MDD PHA may also request a waiver of a HUD requirement not listed in this section and receive expedited review of the request if the MDD PHA documents that the waiver is needed for relief and recovery purposes. This documentation need not be in writing if HUD determines that providing written documentation is impracticable.
HUD expects that any waiver granted pursuant to this notice will benefit families affected by the disasters, for example by enabling MDD PHA staff to focus on relief and recovery efforts.
An MDD PHA seeking a waiver of a HUD requirement listed below or of any other HUD requirement needed to assist the MDD PHA in its relief and recover efforts must submit a waiver request pursuant to the process outlined in Section IV of this notice. HUD will not approve an MDD PHA's or other recipient's request to waive a fair housing, civil rights, labor standards, or environmental requirement. The request must be submitted to HUD not later than January 4, 2018.
HUD has developed a checklist (Attachment A to this notice) that an MDD PHA must complete and submit to take advantage of the provisions identified in this notice and the expedited review of waiver requests. Each provision on the checklist indicates the documentation that must accompany the MDD PHA's submission. Each request for a waiver (Section 3 of the checklist) must include a good-cause justification stating why the waiver is needed for the PHA's relief and recovery efforts.
To complete the checklist, take the following steps:
1. Download the checklist to your computer, saving the document with the following filename: FR-5987-N-01. Your Agency's HA Code (
2. Complete the section titled Information about Requesting Agency. This section must be complete. An official of the MDD PHA must sign where indicated. If the information about the requesting agency is incomplete or the checklist has not been signed, then the checklist will be returned without review.
3. Complete Sections 1, 2, and/or 3 of the checklist, as applicable, noting the documentation (if any) that accompanies each provision.
4. Address an email to both HUD HQ and your Field Office Public Housing Director. In the subject line, type “Hurricane Harvey/Irma Disaster Relief.” Email:
5. Attach the completed checklist to your email.
6. Click “Send.”
Checklists and any supporting documentation or information must be submitted not later than January 4, 2018. Requests submitted after January 4, 2018 will not be considered, nor will HUD consider any waiver requests submitted to this email address that are unrelated to relief and recovery efforts.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the docket file must be scheduled by Calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for public comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), make available the draft Environmental Assessment (dEA) for the San Antonio Water System (SAWS) draft Habitat Conservation Plan (dHCP) for construction of two water pipelines (Micron and Water Resources Integration Program (WRIP)) in Bexar County, Texas. SAWS (applicant) has applied to the Service for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received or postmarked on or before November 6, 2017.
The ITP application is available by mail from the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87103.
•
○ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87102.
○ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758.
•
•
We request that you send comments by only the methods described above.
Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758 or (512) 490-0057.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), make available the draft Environmental Assessment (dEA) for the San Antonio Water System (SAWS) draft Habitat Conservation Plan (dHCP) for construction of two water pipelines (Micron and Water Resources Integration Program (WRIP)) in Bexar County, Texas. SAWS (applicant) has applied to the Service for an incidental take permit (ITP; TE 36242C-0) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The proposed take would occur within SAWS's rights-of-way (permit area) during construction of two water pipelines (by Micron and WRIP) in Bexar County, Texas, as a result of vegetation disturbance; excavation; temporary placement of excavated material; permanent placement of pipe, casings, and stabilizing materials; backfilling of excavated trenches; and restoration of surface conditions (covered activities). The permit area is 160.4 acres.
In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
1. We have gathered the information necessary to determine impacts and formulate alternatives for the dEA related to potential issuance of an ITP to the applicant; and
2. The applicant has developed a dHCP as part of the application for an ITP, which describes the measures the applicant has agreed to take to minimize and mitigate the effects of incidental take of the covered species to the maximum extent practicable pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA.
As described in the dHCP, the proposed incidental take would occur within the rights-of-way of two proposed water pipelines in Bexar County, Texas, and would result from activities associated with otherwise lawful activities.
The proposed action involves the issuance of an ITP by the Service for the covered activities in the permit area, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. The ITP would cover incidental take of the covered species associated with construction of the Micron and WRIP water pipelines within the permit area.
To meet the requirements of a section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP, the applicant has developed and proposes to implement its dHCP, which describes the conservation measures the applicant has agreed to undertake to minimize and mitigate for the impacts of the proposed incidental take of the covered species to the maximum extent practicable, and ensures that incidental take will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of these species in the wild.
The applicant proposes to mitigate with the perpetual protection, management, and monitoring of 57.6 acres of the undeveloped portion of SAWS's Anderson Pump Station, which is adjacent to the proposed pipelines.
Two alternatives to the proposed action we are considering as part of this process are:
1. No Action: No ITP would be issued. Under a No Action alternative, the Service would not issue the requested ITP, and SAWS would not construct the Micron and WRIP water pipelines. Therefore, the applicant would not implement the conservation measures described in the dHCP.
2. Reduced Take and Reduced Mitigation: The Reduced Take and Reduced Mitigation alternative is similar to the Proposed Action in that the Service would issue an ITP for the proposed projects. However, the HCP under this alternative would be modified to cover a reduced area of karst zone impacts and thus would subsequently reduce the amount of conservation to offset the impacts. All other aspects of the proposed project and the HCP would remain the same.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. 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 request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) and NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have issued the following permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. We issue these permits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax (703) 358-2281. To locate the
Joyce Russell, (703) 358-2023 (telephone); (703) 358-2281 (fax); or
On the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We issue this notice under the authority of the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada, has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Gold Bar Mine Project (Project) in Eureka County, Nevada, and by this Notice is announcing its availability.
The BLM will not issue a final decision on the proposal for a minimum of 30 days after the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
Copies of the FEIS for the Project and other documents pertinent to this proposal may be reviewed at the Mount Lewis Field Office: 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820. The document is available for download at
Christine Gabriel—Project Manager, telephone 775-635-4000; address 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820; email
McEwen Mining Inc. (MMI) proposes to develop a gold mine in the southwest portion of the Roberts Mountains approximately 30 miles northwest of Eureka, Nevada. The mine plan boundary encompasses 5,362 acres of public lands and 199 acres of private lands located in Eureka County, Nevada. The proposed Project would include four open pits; waste rock dump areas (WRDAs); crushing, screening, and agglomeration facilities; heap leach pads (HLP), an associated process solution pond, and an event pond; an adsorption, desorption, and recovery (ADR) plant including barren and pregnant solution tanks; ancillary and other facilities including an explosive storage area, ammonium nitrate prill silos, liquid natural gas (LNG) Cryostorage or compressed natural gas (CNG) generators with a switch station, a truck shop and wash bay, a ready line, landfill, laydown areas, water and power infrastructure, buildings, yards, parking, storage, growth media stockpiles, production water wells (GBPW-210 and GBPW-211) and an associated water supply pipeline, groundwater monitoring wells (GBMW-01, GBMW-03, and GBMW-04), communication facilities, potable water and fire water facilities, septic systems, and fencing; and mine access roads (Three Bars Road, Atlas Haul Road, North Roberts Creek Road, Bypass Road [NVN-91566], and Roberts Creek Road). The Project would disturb 1,154 acres, including re-disturbing 420 acres of existing, non-reclaimed disturbance from a previous abandoned mining operation; 718 acres of new disturbance; and 16 acres of new disturbance as a result of exploration. Of the 1,154 acres, 185 acres would be on private land, and 969 acres would be on public land.
The proposed pit depths would not intercept groundwater. No pit dewatering would be necessary and no pit lakes are anticipated to form after mining operations end. The Final EIS, through scoping and a 45-day public comment period, has identified and analyzed impacts to the following resources areas: Water resources, air quality, vegetation resources, wildlife, grazing management, land use and access, aesthetics (noise and visual), cultural resources, paleontological resources, geological resources (including minerals and soils), recreation, social and economic values, hazardous materials, Native American cultural concerns, and wild horses. The proposed project area does not have any lands with wilderness characteristics (LWCs). The Pony Express National Historic Trail crosses existing Three Bars and North Roberts Creek Roads; however, public and recreational access to the National Historic Trail would not be affected by mining activities.
The FEIS describes and analyzes the proposed Project's direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on all affected resources. In addition to the proposed Project, four alternatives were analyzed including the 25kV Overhead Distribution Line Alternative, the Three Bars Road/Atlas Haul Road as Only Access Alternative, the Mount Hope and North Roberts Creek Road for Light Vehicle Traffic Alternative, and the No Action Alternative. The Draft EIS was released for a 45-day public comment period, which ended April 17, 2017. A public meeting was held in Eureka, Nevada on March 22, 2017. A total of 2,178 comment letters were received from the general public, agencies, special interest groups, businesses and organizations. The FEIS responds to all comments received. These public comments resulted in the addition of clarifying text, but did not significantly change the analysis. Based on the analysis in the FEIS, the BLM has determined that the preferred alternative is the approval of the Project, with accompanying mitigation measures and voluntary applicant-committed
The BLM has consulted and continues to consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including potential impacts to areas of critical cultural and spiritual significance and potential impacts to cultural resources have been analyzed in the Final EIS.
Following a 30-day Final EIS availability and review period, a Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued. The decision reached in the ROD is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals. The 30-day appeal period begins with the issuance of the ROD.
40 CFR 1501.7.
United States International Trade Commission.
October 16, 2017 at 2:30 p.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
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 13, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
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.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On August 16, 2017, Core Pipe Products, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois and
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on October 2, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4734 (October 2017), entitled
By order of the Commission.
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;
(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;
(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;
(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;
(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;
(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));
(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
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));
(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));
(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) is published in the
(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.
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) (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.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
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
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, no later than October 16, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than October 16, 2017.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for Curtis-Strauss, LLC., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). Additionally, OSHA announces its final decision to add a new test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on October 6, 2017.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of Curtis-Strauss, LLC (CSL) as a NRTL. CSL's expansion covers the addition of one test standard to its scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.
The Agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
CSL submitted an application, dated April 7, 2016 (OSHA-2009-0026-0072), to expand its recognition to include one additional test standard, which would also be added to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing CSL's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to CSL's application, go to:
OSHA staff examined CSL's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that CSL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the specified limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant CSL's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of CSL's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standard listed in Table 1 below.
Additionally, Table 2, below, lists the test standard new to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. The Agency evaluated the standard to (1) verify it represents product categories for which OSHA requires certification by a NRTL, (2) verify the documents represent end products and not components, and (3) verify the documents define safety test specifications (not installation or operational performance specifications). Based on this evaluation, OSHA finds that this is an appropriate test standard and has added this standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standard listed above as an American National Standard. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, CSL must abide by the following conditions of recognition:
1. CSL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. CSL must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. CSL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on CSL's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of CSL, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above.
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant partially-exclusive term license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant a partially exclusive term license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 8,163,972 entitled, “Zero-Valent Metallic Treatment System and its Application for Removal and Remediation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),” KSC-12878-2-CIP, to Marley Environmental, Inc., having its principal place of business in Avon, CT. Marley Environmental, Inc. has requested exclusivity for all fields of use in a limited geographic area. This area shall include EPA Region 1 (which includes the states of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine), New York, and New Jersey.
The prospective partially-exclusive license may be granted unless NASA receives written objections, including evidence and argument, no later than October 23, 2017 that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA no later than October 23, 2017 will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center, Mail Code CC-A Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899. Telephone: 321-867-2076; Facsimile: 321-867-1817.
Jonathan Leahy, Patent Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center, Mail Code CC-A, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899. Telephone: 321-867-6553; Facsimile: 321-867-1817.
This notice of intent to grant a partially-exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective exclusive license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
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, 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:
Open meeting of the Executive Committee of the National Science Board, to be held Tuesday, October 10, 2017, from 2:00-3:00 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314.
Open.
Committee Chair's Opening Remarks; approval of Executive Committee Minutes of July 17, 2017; approval of Addendum to the Plenary Closed Minutes of the NSB Meeting of May 2017; discuss issues and topics for an agenda of the NSB Meeting scheduled for November 8-9, 2017.
Point of contact for this meeting is: James Hamos, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314. Telephone: (703) 292-8000. You may find meeting information and updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) at
An audio listening line will be available for the public. Members of the public must contact the Board Office to request the number by sending an email to
National Science Foundation (NSF).
Request for Information (RFI).
This Request for Information (RFI) is issued in response to the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (AICA). NSF seeks information on existing and future needs for mid-scale research infrastructure projects from the US-based NSF science and engineering community. The AICA requires NSF to “evaluate the existing and future needs, across all disciplines supported by the Foundation, for mid-scale projects” and “develop a strategy to address the needs.” The input will be used to assess the needs for mid-scale RI from the US-based NSF science and engineering community in order to develop a strategy, in accordance with the AICA.
To be considered, submissions must be received no later than December 8, 2017.
1. Concept title and description. The description should include the potential for any inter-agency or international partnerships and contributions that are part of the TPC;
2. Point of contact (in case additional clarification is needed);
3. Contact of your Authorized Organizational Representative. Note, this contact will receive a copy of the survey submission;
4. New, transformative science or scientific breakthroughs to be enabled by project;
5. Evidence of research community support (list of reports, decadal surveys, other publications);
6. Rough order of magnitude TPC (fully loaded,
7. Concept of operations: anticipated duration and level of federal and non-federal support.
Researchers, users, and leaders at U.S. based colleges and universities as well as non-profits who are well positioned to advance and support a mid-scale project throughout its lifecycle.
To submit your concept, please use this link:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Revision to policy statement.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has revised and consolidated two policy statements on the NRC's Agreement State Programs: The “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” and the “Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement
This policy statement is effective on October 6, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0094 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:
•
•
•
Lance Rakovan, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2589, email:
The “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” (62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997) presented the NRC's policy for determining the adequacy and compatibility of Agreement State programs. The “Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program” (62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997) described the respective roles and responsibilities of the NRC and the States in the administration of programs carried out under the 274b. State Agreement.
The NRC staff's current efforts to update the Agreement State policy statements began with the Commission's direction provided in the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) to SECY-10-0105, “Final Rule: Limiting the Quantity of Byproduct Material in a Generally Licensed Device (RIN 3150-AI33),” issued on December 2, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103360262). The Commission directed the NRC staff to update the Commission's “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” and associated guidance documents to include both safety and source security considerations in the compatibility determination process. Because Agreement State adequacy and compatibility are closely linked to the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP),
The Commission approved publication of the draft revisions to the policy statements for public comment in the revised SRM to SECY-12-0112, dated May 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13148A352). The NRC staff published the two proposed policy statements on June 3, 2013 (78 FR 33122), for a 75-day comment period. After receiving requests from the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) and the State of Florida to extend the public comment period, the NRC extended the comment period to September 16, 2013 (78 FR 50118; August 16, 2013). The NRC held two public meetings (July 18 and August 6, 2013) and a topical session during the OAS annual meeting in Reno, Nevada, on August 28, 2013. The NRC staff specifically solicited comment on Compatibility Category B, and whether or not the policy statements should maintain the language from the 1997 “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” describing the adoption and number of compatible regulations.
The NRC staff received 13 submissions from commenters including Agreement States, industry organizations, and individuals. These submissions contained 51 comments on the policy statements in general and 45 comments on Compatibility Category B. The need for consistent application and flexible implementation of the NRC's policies was the underlying theme expressed by the Agreement States in the written comments as well as during the public meetings and the OAS topical session. Some commenters provided general remarks and addressed specific sections of the policy statements. Some commenters also expressed concern that the inconsistent use of terms (
In COMSECY-14-0028, “Agreement State Program Policy Statements: Update on Recent Activities and Recommendations for Path Forward,” dated July 14, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14156A277), the NRC staff proposed consolidating the two policy statements in a single policy statement. The Commission approved this plan in the SRM to COMSECY-14-0028, dated August 12, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14224A618). Accordingly, the NRC staff developed a proposed single consolidated policy statement that: Identified and eliminated redundant language between the two policy statements, removed detailed information on IMPEP and the “Principles of Good Regulation” (ADAMS Accession No. ML15083A026), added context to make the proposed policy statement clearer and more consistent with other recent NRC policy statements, and added a description of the NMP.
The Commission approved publication of the proposed consolidated Agreement State Program Policy Statement for public comment in the SRM to SECY-15-0087, dated March 22, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16082A514). The NRC staff published the proposed Agreement State Program Policy Statement on June 2, 2016 (81 FR 35388), for a 75-day public comment period. The NRC staff also held two public webinars during the comment period. The NRC staff received 31 comments from commenters including Agreement States and the OAS.
The final policy statement is included in its entirety in the attachment to this document.
The 31 comments received in response to the
No change was made to the Agreement State Program Policy Statement as a result of these comments.
This final Agreement State Program Policy Statement is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
This Policy Statement contains voluntary guidance for information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of October 9, 16, 23, 30, November 6, 13, 2017.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 9, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 16, 2017.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 30, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 6, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 13, 2017.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
On August 22, 2017, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
In connection with clearing Single Name (“SN”) credit default swaps (“CDS”) referencing ICC Clearing Participants (“CPs”), ICC has proposed changes to its Stress Testing Framework and Liquidity Risk Management Framework, which ICC believes will enhance its stress testing and liquidity stress testing practices. The proposed rule change would expand the stress test scenarios that ICC considers to be extreme but plausible by incorporating additional losses related to the expected loss given default of all names not explicitly assumed to enter a state of default in a CP's portfolio.
The proposed change would enhance ICC's guaranty fund sizing process by adding a new sensitivity analysis. This new analysis would contemplate the default of three CP SNs and two non-CP SNs. This analysis would be in addition to the current sizing approach, which contemplates the default of two CP SNs and three non-CP SNs. While not immediately requiring the collection of additional resources, ICC stated that the proposed change could provide a potential remedy where deficiencies are identified in ICC's current sizing methodology.
ICC also proposes to add an interest rate sensitivity analysis in order to comply with CFTC Regulation 17 CFR 39.36. The proposed interest rate sensitivity analysis would shock the Euro and USD interest rate curves up and down to see which scenario would lead to further erosion of ICC's guaranty fund. ICC stated that this analysis would have no impact on its guaranty fund sizing methodology.
The proposed change also includes amendments to ICC's approach to Specific Wrong-Way Risk (“SWWR”) P/L to expand the SWWR P/L to incorporate losses arising in connection with defaulting CP specific exposures, and also adds a description of ICC's current client stress testing practices. ICC stated that these changes were proposed for consistency with specific CFTC regulations.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, which enhances ICC's Stress Testing Framework and Liquidity Risk Management Framework, is consistent with section 17A
Additionally, while adoption of the sensitivity analyses described above will not immediately require ICC to collect additional financial resources, it will provide ICC with additional risk management information. Further, ICC stated that at least in some cases, one of the newly added analyses could provide a potential remedy where deficiencies are identified in ICC's current sizing methodology.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to permit affiliated member organizations that are Supplemental Liquidity Providers (“SLPs”) on the Exchange to obtain the most favorable rate when (1) at least one affiliate satisfies the quoting requirements for SLPs in assigned securities, and (2) the combined SLPs' aggregate volumes satisfy the adding liquidity volume requirements for SLP tiered and non-tiered rates. The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed changes on September 25, 2017.
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to permit affiliated member organizations that are SLPs on the Exchange to obtain the most favorable rate when (1) at least one affiliate satisfies the quoting requirements for SLPs in assigned securities, and (2) the combined SLPs' aggregate volumes satisfy the adding liquidity volume requirements for SLP tiered and non-tiered rates.
The proposed changes would be applicable to all SLP transactions, regardless of price of the security.
The Exchange proposes to implement these changes to its Price List effective September 25, 2017.
SLPs are eligible for certain credits when adding liquidity to the Exchange. The amount of the credit is currently determined by the “tier” for which the SLP qualifies, which is based on the SLP's level of quoting and ADV of liquidity added by the SLP in assigned securities.
Currently, SLP Tier 3 provides that when adding liquidity to the NYSE in securities with a share price of $1.00 or more, an SLP is eligible for a credit of $0.0023 per share traded if the SLP (1) meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in an assigned security pursuant to Rule 107B and (2) adds liquidity for all assigned SLP securities
SLP Tier 2 provides that an SLP adding liquidity in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more is eligible for a per share credit of $0.0026 if the SLP: (1) Meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in an assigned security pursuant to Rule 107B; and (2) adds liquidity for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.45% of NYSE CADV, or with respect to an SLP that is also a DMM and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(a), more than 0.45% of NYSE CADV after a discount of the percentage for the prior quarter of NYSE CADV in DMM assigned securities as of the last business day of the prior month.
SLP Tier 1A provides that an SLP adding liquidity in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more is eligible for a per share credit of $0.00275 if the SLP: (1) Meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in an assigned security pursuant to Rule 107B; and (2) adds liquidity for all for assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.60% of NYSE CADV, or with respect to an SLP that is also a DMM and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(a), more than 0.60% after a discount of the percentage for the prior quarter of NYSE CADV in DMM assigned securities as of the last business day of the prior month. The SLP Tier 1A credit in the case of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders is $0.00105.
SLP Tier 1 provides that an SLP adding liquidity in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more is eligible for a per share credit of $0.0029 if the SLP: (1) Meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in an assigned security pursuant to Rule 107B; and (2) adds liquidity for all for assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.90% of NYSE CADV, or with respect to an SLP that is also a DMM and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(a), more than 0.90% after a discount of the percentage for the prior quarter of NYSE CADV in DMM assigned securities as of the last business day of the prior month. The SLP Tier 1 credit in the case of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders is $0.0012.
Finally, a SLP adding liquidity in securities with a per share price of less than $1.00 is eligible for a per share credit of $0.0005 if the SLP: (1) Meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in an assigned security pursuant to Rule 107B; and (2) adds liquidity for all for assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.22% of NYSE CADV in the applicable month.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Price List to permit affiliated member organizations that are SLPs to obtain the most favorable rate when (1) at least one affiliate satisfies the quoting requirements for SLPs in assigned securities, and (2) the combined SLPs' aggregate volumes satisfy the adding liquidity volume requirements for SLP tiered (
To effect this change, for each of the SLP tiered and non-tiered rates, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Replace the phrase “Credit per share—per transaction—for SLPs” with the phrase “Credit per share—per transaction for affiliated SLPs;” (ii) add a footnote that provides that affiliated member organizations that are SLPs would be eligible for the most favorable rate for any such security traded in an applicable month provided that one or both affiliated member organizations request and are approved for aggregation of eligible activity pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Price List; (iii) replace the phrase “the SLP,” with the phrase “an SLP;” and (iv) add the phrase “or an affiliated” before the term “member organization.”
In order to qualify as affiliates for purposes of obtaining the more favorable rate and aggregating the adding liquidity of an ADV volumes, one or both member organizations that are SLPs would be required to follow the procedures set forth in the Price List for requesting that the Exchange aggregate its eligible activity with the eligible activity of its affiliates.
For example, assume a member organization with a SLP (SLP1) is affiliated with another member organization that also has a SLP (SLP2). If the adding liquidity for all for assigned SLP securities is 0.40% of NYSE CADV for SLP1 in the billing month and 0.10% of NYSE CADV for SLP2, the combined adding liquidity for SLP1 and SLP2 would be 0.50% of NYSE CADV, and both SLP1 and SLP2 would meet the 0.45% NYSE CADV adding requirement. If in that same billing month, SLP1 has 8.0% quoting in SLP symbol XYZ and SLP2 has 12.0% quoting in that same symbol XYZ, both SLP1 and SLP2 would qualify for the SLP Tier 2 credit of $0.0026 in symbol XYZ, by way of SLP2's 12.0% quoting and the combined adding liquidity of SLP1 and SLP 2 of 0.50% of NYSE CADV. If SLP2 did not quote in symbol XYZ at least 10%, then SLP1 would not qualify for the SLP Tier 2 credit due to their 8.0% quoting being short of the 10% requirement, and then SLP1 and SLP2 would instead receive the applicable non-Tier Adding Credit, Tier 3 Adding Credit, Tier 2 Adding Credit or Tier 1 Adding Credit.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable because the SLP credit rates, established in previous rule filings, would remain the same.
The Exchange further believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory because it would serve to reduce disparity of treatment between member organizations with regard to the pricing of different services and reduce any potential for confusion on how SLP activity can be aggregated. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change avoids disparate treatment of member organizations that have divided their various business activities between separate corporate entities as compared to member organizations that operate those business activities within a single corporate entity. The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because it aligns how affiliated member organizations that are approved as SLPs may aggregate volume in the same manner that affiliated member organizations currently aggregate non-SLP trading volume.
The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes a rule change (the “Proposed Rule Change”) in connection with the proposed merger (the “Merger”) with a newly-formed Delaware limited liability company under the Exchange's ultimate parent, Nasdaq, Inc., resulting in the Exchange as the surviving entity. Following the Merger, the Exchange's board and committee structure, and all related corporate governance processes, will be harmonized with that of the three other registered national securities exchanges and self-regulatory organizations owned by Nasdaq, Inc., namely: The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NSM”), NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx”), and NASDAQ BX, Inc. (“BX” and together with NSM and Phlx, the “Nasdaq Exchanges”).
In connection with the Merger and as discussed more fully below, the Exchange proposes to adopt new organizational documents that set forth a corporate governance framework and related processes that are substantially similar in all material respects to those of the Nasdaq Exchanges.
The Exchange intends to implement the Proposed Rule Change no later than by the end of Q4 2017. The Exchange will alert its members in the form of a Regulatory Alert to provide notification of the implementation date.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange was recently acquired by Nasdaq, Inc. (“HoldCo”).
The proposed changes consist of: (1) Deleting the Exchange's current Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “Current LLC Agreement”) in its entirety and replacing it with a new limited liability company agreement (the “LLC Agreement”) that is based on the limited liability company agreement of NSM, (2) deleting the Exchange's current Constitution (“Current Constitution” and together with the Current LLC Agreement, the “Current Governing Documents”) in its entirety and replacing it with a new set of by-laws (the “Bylaws” and together with the LLC Agreement, the “New Governing Documents”) that is based on the by-laws of NSM, and (3) making minor clarifying changes to its rules, as discussed below.
All of the proposed changes are designed to align the Exchange's corporate governance framework to the existing structure at the Nasdaq Exchanges, particularly as it relates to
In order to effectuate the proposed changes above, the Exchange proposes to merge with a Delaware limited liability company (“NewCo”), newly-formed as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ISE Holdings, resulting in the Exchange as the surviving entity. Specifically, pursuant to the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, as amended from time to time (the “LLC Act”), NewCo would be formed under ISE Holdings upon filing a certificate of formation with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware (“DE Secretary of State”). Subsequently, the Exchange would enter into an agreement and plan of merger with NewCo (the “Merger Agreement”), under which NewCo would merge into the Exchange, with the Exchange surviving the Merger. The Merger Agreement contemplates that the merged limited liability company (
Following the Merger, the Exchange proposes to be governed by the New Governing Documents in accordance with the LLC Act. The specific changes effected by the New Governing Documents to the current documents are discussed in the following sections.
Following the Merger, the Exchange proposes to adopt the LLC Agreement,
Section 1 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Name,” specifies the name of the surviving entity of the Merger as the name of the Exchange. Section 2 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Principal Business Office,” provides for the principal business office of the Exchange and such other location as may hereafter be determined by the Board.
Sections 3 and 4 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Registered Office” and “Registered Agent,” specifies the place of the Exchange's registered office and the entity acting as its registered agent, which is the same place and entity used by the Nasdaq Exchanges.
Section 5 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Sole LLC Member,” provides that the mailing address of the Sole LLC Member is set forth on Schedule B of the LLC Agreement. As noted above, ISE Holdings will remain as the Sole LLC Member of the Exchange.
Section 6 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Certificates,” refers to the filing of the Certificate of Merger with respect to the Merger. Such provision acknowledges and confirms that such filings, which were necessary for the merger to be effected, were authorized by the Exchange. This Section additionally sets forth those person(s) who have the authority to file any other certificates with the Delaware Secretary of State on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to the LLC Act. This provision is purely administrative in nature and therefore will have no material substantive effect on the current operations or the governance of the Exchange.
Section 7 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Purposes,” discusses the Exchange's business purpose, which provides that the Exchange may engage in any lawful act or activity for which limited liability companies may be formed under the LLC Act and any and all activities necessary or incidental to the foregoing. Without limiting these general powers, proposed Section 7 also specifically provides that the Exchange's business would include actions that support its regulatory responsibilities under the Act, including: (i) Supporting the operation, regulation, and surveillance of the national securities exchange operated by the Exchange, (ii) preventing fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promoting just and equitable principles of trade, fostering cooperation and coordination with
Section 8 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Powers,” discusses the general powers of the Exchange, the Board and the officers of the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange, the Board and the officers on behalf of the Exchange (i) shall have and exercise all powers necessary, convenient or incidental to accomplish its purposes as set forth in Section 7 of the LLC Agreement and (ii) shall have and exercise all of the powers and rights conferred upon limited liability companies formed pursuant to the LLC Act. Section 8 is based on Section 8 of the NSM LLC Agreement, and is similar to the provisions in the Current LLC Agreement and the Current Bylaws.
Section 9 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Management,” sets forth the proposed management structure of the Exchange. Section 9(a) pertains to the Board of the Exchange and provides that the Board will manage the Exchange's business and affairs, similar to the provisions in Section 5.1 of the Current LLC Agreement.
The Exchange proposes in Section 9(a), similar to the Nasdaq Exchanges, that at least 20% of the Directors would be Member Representative Directors.
By adopting the new Board structure set forth in the New Governing Documents, the Exchange is proposing to replace the Exchange Director positions and all related concepts thereto,
New Section 9(a) of the LLC Agreement also proposes that all Directors other than the Member Representative Directors shall be elected by the Sole LLC Member in the manner described in the proposed Bylaws. Mirroring Section 9(a) of the NSM LLC Agreement, each Director elected, designated or appointed by the Sole LLC Member shall hold office until a successor is elected and qualified or until such Director's earlier death, resignation, expulsion or removal. As noted above, Member Representative Directors shall be elected in accordance with the Bylaws. Each Director shall execute and deliver an instrument accepting such appointment and agreeing to be bound by all the terms and conditions of the LLC Agreement and the Bylaws. A Director need not be an Exchange member.
The Exchange is also proposing to adopt substantially similar provisions set forth in Section 9 of the NSM LLC Agreement with respect to the Powers of the Board, the By-Laws, the Meeting of the Board of Directors, Quorum; LLC Acts of the Board and Electronic Communications.
The Meeting of the Board of Directors subsection contains standard Delaware limited liability company provisions governing regular and special meetings of the board, and related notice provisions. Similar language is found in Section 3.6 of the Current Constitution, and the Exchange is proposing to streamline these administrative procedures across the Nasdaq Exchanges. The Exchange also proposes to add a provision in this subsection that all meetings of the Board of Directors of the Exchange (and any committees of the Exchange) pertaining to the self-regulatory function of the Exchange (including disciplinary matters) or relating to the structure of the market which the Exchange regulates shall be closed to all persons other than members of the Board of Directors and officers, staff, counsel or other advisors whose participation is necessary or appropriate to the proper discharge of such regulatory functions and any representatives of the Commission. The proposed language also prohibits members of the Sole LLC Member's board of directors who are not also members of the Exchange's board of directors or any officers, staff, counsel or advisors of the Sole LLC Member who are not also officers, staff, counsel or advisors of the Exchange from participating in such meetings.
The subsections, Quorum; LLC Acts of the Board and Electronic Communications, contain standard Delaware limited liability company provisions governing quorum rules for Board actions, Board action by unanimous written consent, and how Board and committee members may participate in Board and committee meetings, as applicable. The Exchange notes that these provisions are similar in all material respects to those in the Current Governing Documents
Section 9(g) of the LLC Agreement generally discusses the standing committees and provides that the Board may designate one or more committees. By adopting new Section 9(g), the Exchange is proposing to delete the current committees set forth in Article V of the Current Constitution and adopt the standing committees similar to those of the Nasdaq Exchanges. Article V of the Current Constitution provides for the following committees: An Executive Committee, a Corporate Governance Committee, a Finance and Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee, and such other additional committees as may be established by Board resolution. Article V also provides for a nominating committee, which is a committee of the Exchange and not the Board, and nominates the Exchange Directors for election to the Board (the “Exchange Director Nominating Committee”). The Exchange proposes to replace these rules with “Committees Composed Solely of Directors” and “Committees Not Composed Solely of Directors” at newly proposed and named Bylaw Article III. The details of those committees will be discussed below in the Bylaws section.
The Exchange proposes to adopt substantially similar provisions set forth in Section 9(g) of the NSM LLC Agreement with respect to the standing committees.
Similar to Section 3.9 of the Current Constitution, proposed Section 9(h) provides that the compensation of Directors shall be fixed by the Board. This language mirrors the provisions in Section 9(h) of the NSM LLC Agreement. The Removal and Resignation of Directors language in proposed Section 9(i) also mirrors Section 9(i) of the NSM LLC Agreement, and is similar to the resignation and removal language in Section 5.4 of the Current LLC Agreement and Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the Current Constitution. The Directors as Agents language in proposed Section 9(j) provides that the Directors are agents of the Exchange and mirrors Section 9(j) of the NSM LLC Agreement.
Section 10, titled “Officers,” the Exchange proposes to adopt identical language regarding officer appointments found in Section 10 of the NSM LLC Agreement, which provisions are similar in nature to the existing provisions in Article IV of the Current Constitution.
Section 11, titled “Limited Liability,” contains standard Delaware limited liability company language on the limitation of liability of the Sole LLC Member and the Directors in the manner permitted under the LLC Act. The proposed language is similar to the limitation of liability language found in the Current LLC Agreement
Sections 12 through 14 of the LLC Agreement, which are virtually identical to Sections 12 through 14 of the NSM LLC Agreement, are equity-related provisions that encompass the topics of capital contributions, additional capital contributions, and allocations of profits and losses. These provisions set forth the basic economic arrangement of the Sole LLC Member and remain consistent with the economic arrangement under the Current Governing Documents.
Similar to Section 4.1 of the Current LLC Agreement, Section 16 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Books and Records,” sets forth certain information relating to general administrative matters with respect to the books and records of the Exchange. Specifically, the Board shall keep or cause to be kept complete and accurate books of account and records with respect to the Exchange's business. The books of the Exchange shall at all times be maintained by the Board. The Exchange's books of account shall be kept using the method of accounting determined by the Sole LLC Member. Further, the Exchange's independent auditor shall be an independent public accounting firm selected by the Board.
Section 17, titled “Reports,” is being added to mirror the language of the NSM LLC Agreement, and requires the Board, after the end of each fiscal year, to use reasonable efforts to cause the Exchange's independent accountants, if any, to prepare and transmit to the Sole LLC Member any tax information that the Sole LLC Member may reasonably need to prepare its federal, state and local income tax returns for such fiscal year.
Section 19, titled “Exculpation and Indemnification,” is based on Section 19 of the NSM LLC Agreement. Similar to the provisions in Article VI of the Current Constitution, the language provides for the exculpation and indemnification of ISE Holdings and any officer, Director, employee or agent of the Exchange or of the affiliate of ISE Holdings. Section 20, titled Assignments, is based on Section 20 of the NSM LLC Agreement, but retains similar transfer restrictions from Section 7.1 of the Current LLC Agreement on any assignments by the Sole LLC Member and prohibits the Sole LLC Member from transferring or assigning its limited liability company interest in the Exchange, unless the Commission approves such transfer or assignment pursuant to a rule filing under Section 19 of the Act.
Sections 22 through 28 of the proposed LLC Agreement contain general provisions which are relatively standard in Delaware limited liability company agreements.
Section 27, titled “Amendments,” provides that the LLC Agreement may be amended by a resolution adopted by the Board and a written agreement executed and delivered by the Sole LLC Member, and further provides that all such amendments to the LLC Agreement will not become effective until filed with, or filed with and approved by, the Commission, as required under Section 19 of the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder.
The Exchange proposes to add a new Schedule A to the LLC Agreement, which contains key definitions used in the LLC Agreement. The Exchange also proposes a section on rules of construction further explaining the definitions in proposed Schedule A.
The Exchange proposes to adopt the Bylaws,
Article II of the Bylaws, titled “Annual Election of Member Representative Directors and Other Actions by Exchange Members,” mirrors the language in NSM Bylaw Article II,
Under the current nomination and election process, nominees for election of the Exchange Directors are selected each year by the Exchange Director Nominating Committee (which is not a Board committee but composed of three Exchange member representatives).
Specifically pursuant to Section 3.2(c) of the Current Constitution, the Exchange Directors are divided into two classes, designated as Class I and Class II directors. Each of Class I and Class II is comprised of half of the Exchange Directors. The Exchange Directors of each class holds office until their successors are duly elected and qualified. At each annual meeting of the holders of Exchange Rights, the successors of the class of Exchange Directors whose term expires at that meeting will be elected by the Exchange Rights holders to hold office for a term expiring at the annual meeting held in the second year following the year of their election, and until their successors are elected and qualified.
The Exchange is proposing to adopt identical nomination and election processes as the Nasdaq Exchanges as set forth in proposed Bylaw Article II, Section 1 so that Member Representative Directors would be elected to the Board on an annual basis.
“Contested Election” will be defined as an election for one or more Member Representative Directors for which the number of candidates on the List of Candidates exceeds the number of positions to be elected.
An additional candidate may be added to the List of Candidates by any Exchange member that submits a timely and duly executed written nomination to the Secretary of the Exchange. To be
For purposes of determining whether a person has been nominated for election by petition by the requisite percentage, no Exchange member, alone or together with its affiliates, may account for more than 50% of the signatures endorsing a particular candidate, and any such signatures by such Exchange member, alone or together with its affiliates, in excess of such 50% limitation shall be disregarded.
If by the date on which an Exchange member may no longer submit a timely nomination, there is only one candidate for each Member Representative Director position to be elected on the Election Date, the Member Representative Directors will be elected by ISE Holdings as the Sole LLC Member from the List of Candidates. In the event of a Contested Election, the Exchange would conduct a vote to determine the candidates on the List of Candidates in accordance with proposed Section 2 of Bylaw Article II, which mirrors the language found in Section 2 of the NSM Bylaw Article II.
If there is a Contested Election, each Exchange member would have the right to cast one vote for each Member Representative Director position to be filled; provided, however, that any such vote must be cast for a person on the List of Candidates. However, an Exchange member, either alone or together with its affiliates, may not cast votes representing more than 20% of the votes cast for a candidate, and any votes cast by the Exchange member, either alone or together with its affiliates, in excess of such 20% limitation would be disregarded.
New Section 3 of Bylaw Article II proposes that if a Member Representative Director position becomes vacant prior to the expiration of such person's term, or it an increase in the size of the Board results in the creation of a new Member Representative Director position, the Sole LLC Member will elect a person from a list of candidates prepared by the Member Nominating Committee to fill such vacancy, except that if the remaining term of office for the vacant Director position is less than six months, no replacement will be required. The proposal would replace the current process for filling Exchange Director vacancies on the Board,
Related to the proposed changes to the Exchange's nomination and election process described above, the Exchange also proposes to create a Member Nominating Committee, which would replace the current Exchange Director Nominating Committee in nominating candidates for director positions that meet the fair representation requirement (
The Exchange believes that the proposed process for selecting Member Representative Directors, together with the requirement in the proposed LLC Agreement that the Board be comprised of at least 20% Member Representative Directors as discussed in the LLC Agreement section above, will continue to provide for a fair representation of its members on the Board. Similar to the nomination and election process currently in place, proposed Bylaw Article II includes a process by which members can directly petition and vote for representation on the Board. The Exchange also believes that proposed process for selecting Member Representative members, together with requirements in the proposed Bylaws that certain committees such as the Quality of Markets Committee be composed of at least 20% Member Representative members, will continue to provide for fair representation of its members in the administration of the Exchange's affairs. In addition, the proposed Member Nominating Committee would be composed solely of persons associated with Exchange members, similar to the current Exchange Director Nominating Committee, and is selected after consultation with representatives of Exchange members. The Commission has previously approved rule changes for substantially similar board nomination and election processes for the Nasdaq Exchanges.
The Exchange is proposing to adopt Article III of the Bylaws, titled “Board of Directors,” which is based on NSM Bylaw Article III. Section 1 of Bylaw Article III proposes that if any Director position other than a Member Representative Director position becomes vacant, whether because of death, disability, disqualification, removal, or resignation, the Nominating Committee (discussed below) shall nominate, and the Sole LLC Member shall select, a person satisfying the classification (Industry, Non-Industry, or Public Director), if applicable, for the directorship to fill such vacancy.
Section 2(a) of Bylaw Article III sets forth the proposed Board composition requirements and provides that a Director may not be subject to a statutory disqualification. The Exchange is proposing to replace the current Board qualification requirements with the ones set forth in the new Section 2(a), which mirrors the qualifications language in Section 2(a) of NSM Bylaw Article III. This proposed change to the current Board composition is in addition to the proposal discussed in the LLC Agreement section above to give the Sole LLC Member discretion to determine the size of the Board from time to time.
Currently, the number of directors on the Board must be no less than eight and no more than sixteen
The term “industry representative” means a person who is an officer, director or employee of a broker or dealer or who has been employed in any such capacity at any time within the prior three (3) years, as well as a person who has a consulting or employment relationship with or has provided professional services to the Exchange and a person who had any such relationship or provided any such services to the Exchange at any time within the prior three (3) years.
The Exchange is proposing to replace the aforementioned Board composition with the board structure in place at the Nasdaq Exchanges. As is the case with the Nasdaq Exchanges, the proposed Board composition would be required to reflect a balance among “Industry Directors,” “Member Representative Directors,” and “Non-Industry Directors,” including “Public Directors.”
• At least twenty percent (20%) of the directors on the Board would be “Member Representative Directors;”
• The number of “Non-Industry Directors”
• The Board would include at least one “Public Director”
• Up to two officers of the Exchange (“Staff Directors”) may be elected to the Board.
Under Section 2(b) of proposed Bylaw Article III, which mirrors Section 2(b) of NSM Bylaw Article III, a Director would be disqualified and removed immediately upon a determination by the Board, by a majority vote of the remaining Directors, (a) that the Director no longer satisfies the classification for which the Director was elected; and (b) that the Director's continued service as such would violate the compositional requirements of the Board set forth in proposed Section 2(a). Thus, for example, if a Public Director became employed by a broker-dealer and the Board thereby had an inadequate number of Public Directors, the Director would be disqualified and removed. If a Director is disqualified and removed, and the remaining term of office of such Director at the time of termination is not more than 6 months, a replacement for the Director is not required until the next annual meeting. Analogous disqualification provisions exist for committee members.
Upon the Acquisition, there were a number of harmonizing changes to the Board,
The terms of the directors on the post-Acquisition Board ended at the 2017 annual meeting of the Exchange Members and Sole LLC Member (“2017 Annual Election”), which was held on June 19, 2017 to elect the current Board and coincided with the 2017 annual elections of the Nasdaq Exchange boards. The Exchange held the 2017 Annual Election to elect the current Board in accordance with the nomination, petition and voting processes set forth in the Current Governing Documents. Once the New Governing Documents become operative, no additional actions will be required under the LLC Act with respect to the current Board. All of the directors on the current Board are existing directors who served on the post-Acquisition Board and, similar to the post-Acquisition Board as described above, the current Board satisfies the board composition requirements both in the Current Governing Documents and in the New Governing Documents.
Second, eight directors who meet the requirements of non-industry representatives under the Current Constitution as well as Non-Industry Directors under the proposed Bylaws were nominated by the existing Corporate Governance Committee and elected by the Sole LLC Member to the current Board. Further, at least three of these directors are Public Directors or issuer representatives, consistent with the composition requirements under the Current Constitution and proposed Bylaws. The current Board therefore reflects a balance among the six Exchange Directors (
For the annual elections starting in 2018 and subject to approval by the Commission, the Exchange will hold its annual elections in accordance with the processes contemplated in the New Governing Documents and as such, the 2017 Board will serve until the 2018 annual election. Specifically upon the Merger, the 2017 Board will appoint a Nominating Committee (as discussed in detail below) and a Member Nominating Committee, and such committees would nominate candidates for the 2018 annual election pursuant to the procedures set forth in proposed Bylaw Article I (for Member Representative Directors) and in proposed Section 9(a) of the LLC Agreement and proposed Bylaw Article III (for all other Directors).
Section 3 of Bylaw Article III, which is copied from Section 3 of NSM Bylaw Article III, contains standard provisions for a Delaware limited liability company governing the appropriateness of reliance by Directors upon the records of the Exchange. Section 3 also recognizes the Exchange's status as an SRO by providing that the Board, when evaluating any proposal, shall, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, take into account all factors that the Board deems relevant, including, without limitation, (i) the potential impact thereof on the integrity, continuity and stability of the national securities exchange operated by the Exchange and the other operations of the Exchange, on the ability to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and on investors and the public, and (ii) whether such would promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to and facilitating transactions in securities or assist in the removal of impediments to or perfection of the mechanisms for a free and open market and a national market system. Taken together, these provisions are designed to reinforce the notion that the Exchange is not solely a commercial enterprise but rather an SRO registered pursuant to the Act and subject to the obligations imposed by the Act.
The proposed new Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Bylaw Article III, which are based on Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the NSM Bylaw Article III, would include provisions governing the composition and authority of various standing committees established by the Board. Proposed new Section 4 of Bylaw Article III would require prospective committee members, who are not Directors, to provide the Secretary of the Exchange with certain information to classify a committee member as an Industry member,
Sections 5 and 6 of proposed Bylaw Article III, titled “Committees Composed Solely of Directors” and “Committees Not Composed Solely of Directors,” establishes several standing committees and delineates their general duties and responsibilities. The proposed committee structure is modeled substantially on the committee
Currently, the standing Board committees of the Exchange are: An Executive Committee, a Corporate Governance Committee, a Finance and Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee, and such other additional committees as may be established by Board resolution.
New Section 5 of Bylaw Article III, which copies the language in Section 5 of NSM Bylaw Article III, provides for an Executive Committee, a Finance Committee, and a Regulatory Oversight Committee.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Section 5(a), which provides that the Board may appoint an Executive Committee and delineates its composition and functions. In particular, the proposed Executive Committee may exercise all the powers and authority of the Board in the management of the business and affairs of the Exchange between meetings of the Board. The number of Non-Industry Directors on the Executive Committee must equal or exceed the number of Industry Directors on the Executive Committee. The percentage of Public Directors on the Executive Committee must be at least as great as the percentage of Public Directors on the whole Board, and the percentage of Member Representative Directors on the Executive Committee must be at least as great as the percentage of Member Representative Directors on the whole Board. Currently, the Executive Committee is a permanent standing committee of the Board.
The Exchange also proposes to adopt new Section 5(b), which provides that the Board may appoint a Finance Committee and delineates its composition and functions. In particular, the Finance Committee will advise the Board with respect to the oversight of the financial operations and conditions of the Exchange, including recommendations for the Exchange's annual operating and capital budgets and proposed changes to the rates and fees charged by the Exchange. By adopting new Section 5, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate the current Finance and Audit Committee, and have all of its duties and functions performed at the Board level, assigned to other proposed Board committees or to the HoldCo audit committee (the “HoldCo Audit Committee”).
Pursuant to its current charter, the Finance and Audit Committee
Furthermore, the HoldCo Audit Committee also covers the functions of the current Finance and Audit Committee. The HoldCo Audit Committee is composed of at least three directors, all of whom must satisfy the standards for independence set forth in Section 10A(m) of the Act
The HoldCo Audit Committee has broad authority to review the financial information that will be provided to shareholders of HoldCo and others, systems of internal controls, and audit, financial reporting and legal and compliance processes. Because HoldCo's financial statements are prepared on a consolidated basis that includes the financial results of HoldCo's subsidiaries, including the Exchange and the other Nasdaq Exchange subsidiaries, HoldCo's audit committee purview necessarily includes these subsidiaries. The Exchange notes that unconsolidated financial statements of the Exchange will still be prepared for each fiscal year in accordance with the requirements set forth in its application for registration as a national securities exchange.
The Exchange believes, however, that even in light of the HoldCo Audit Committee's overall responsibilities for internal controls and the internal audit function, it is nevertheless important for the Board to maintain its own independent oversight over the Exchange's controls and internal audit matters relating to the Exchange's operations. Therefore, the Exchange is proposing to create a Regulatory Oversight Committee (“ROC”) so that regulatory oversight functions formerly performed by the Finance and Audit Committee may be assumed by the new committee.
Similarly, it is already a formal practice of HoldCo's Internal Audit Department, which performs internal audit functions for all HoldCo subsidiaries, to report to the Nasdaq Exchange boards on all Nasdaq Exchange-related internal audit matters and to direct such reports to the ROCs of the Nasdaq Exchanges.
To effectuate this change, the Exchange proposes to adopt the new Section 5(c) providing for a ROC and delineating its composition and functions. In particular, the proposed ROC's responsibilities will be to: (i) Oversee the adequacy and effectiveness of the Exchange's regulatory and self-regulatory organization responsibilities; (ii) assess the Exchange's regulatory performance; and (iii) assist the Board and other committees of the Board in reviewing the regulatory plan and the overall effectiveness of the Exchange's regulatory functions. In furtherance of its functions, the ROC shall: (A) Review the Exchange's regulatory budget and specifically inquire into the adequacy of resources available in the budget for regulatory activities; (B) meet regularly with the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer in executive session; and (C) be informed about the compensation and promotion or termination of the Chief Regulatory Officer and the reasons therefor. The Exchange proposes that the ROC shall consist of three members, each of whom shall be a Public Director and an “independent director” as defined in Rule 5605 of the Rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC.
Given the expansive regulatory and internal oversight of the proposed ROC and HoldCo Audit Committee, coupled with the oversight and responsibilities of the full Board and HoldCo's Internal Audit Department, the Exchange believes that all of the duties and functions of the eliminated Finance and Audit Committee would continue to be performed in the new governance structure as proposed herein.
By adopting the new Board committees in Section 5, the Exchange also proposes to eliminate its current Compensation Committee, and to prescribe that its duties be performed by the HoldCo management compensation committee or the full Board when required. The Compensation Committee
To the extent that policies, programs, and practices must also be established for any Exchange officers or employees who are not also HoldCo officers or employees, the Board would perform such actions without the use of a compensation committee (but subject to the recusal of the Staff Directors).
Finally, the Exchange also proposes to eliminate the current Corporate Governance Committee, and to prescribe that its duties be performed by the new Nominating Committee (as discussed below), the new ROC or by the full Board when required. The Corporate Governance Committee
As it relates to the general supervision over the corporate governance of the Exchange, the full Board would perform such functions without the use of a corporate governance committee, similar to the boards of the Nasdaq Exchanges.
In addition to the proposed Board committees discussed above, new Section 6 of Bylaw Article III provides for the appointment by the Board of certain standing committees, not composed solely of Directors, to administer various provisions of the rules that the Exchange expects to propose with respect to governance, options trading and member discipline. By adopting Section 6, the Exchange proposes to eliminate certain standing committees and have their relevant functions performed by the new committees, each as described below.
The new Member Nominating Committee, responsible for: (i) The nomination for election of Member Representative Directors to the Board or (ii) the nomination for appointment of Member Representative members to the committees requiring such members, would replace the Exchange Director Nominating Committee. The composition requirements of the Member Nominating Committee are discussed in the Nomination and Election Process section above.
The new Nominating Committee will nominate candidates for all other vacant or new Director positions on the Board, and therefore, would perform the non-industry representative nomination function currently assigned to the Corporate Governance Committee. The Nominating Committee will consist of no fewer than six and no more than nine members, and the number of Non-Industry members (
The new Quality of Markets Committee (the “QMC”), which is modeled off of the QMCs of the Nasdaq Exchanges,
Proposed Section 7 of Bylaw Article III contains standard provisions for a Delaware limited liability company requiring recusal by Directors or committee members subject to a conflict of interest, and providing for the enforceability of contracts in which a Director has an interest if appropriately approved or ratified by disinterested Directors. This language is based on Section 7 of NSM Bylaw Article III. Proposed Section 8 of Bylaw Article III allows for reasonable compensation of the Board and committee members, and mirrors Section 8 of NSM Bylaw Article III.
Bylaw Article IV, titled “Officers, Agents, and Employees,” contains provisions governing the Exchange's officers, agents and employees, and is based on Article IV of the NSM Bylaws. Proposed Section 1 of Bylaw Article IV provides that the Board may delegate the duties and powers of any officer of the Exchange to any other officer or to any Director for a specified period of time and for any reason that the Board may deem sufficient. Proposed Section 2 discusses how an officer of the Exchange may resign or may be removed. Proposed Sections 3 through 11 each specifically provides for the appointment of a Chair of the Board,
Bylaw Article VII, titled “Miscellaneous Provisions,” contains standard limited liability company provisions relating to waiver of notice of meetings and the Exchange's contracting ability. Article VIII, titled “Amendments; Emergency By-Laws,” authorizes amendments to the By-Laws by either the Sole LLC Member or the vote of a majority of the whole Board,
Article IX, titled “Exchange Authorities,” which mirrors NSM Bylaw Article IX, contains specific authorization for the Board to adopt rules needed to effect the Exchange's obligations as an SRO, to establish disciplinary procedures and impose sanctions on its members, to establish standards for membership, to impose dues, fees, assessments, and other charges and to take action under emergency or extraordinary market conditions.
The Exchange proposes to amend its current Rules to reflect the changes to its constituent documents through the adoption of the New Governing Documents to replace the Current Governing Documents.
In Rule 100, titled “Definitions,” the Exchange proposes to make the following changes:
• Rule 100(a) currently refers to Article XIII of the Current Constitution as containing certain defined terms that are also used in the Exchange's rulebook. The proposed change would replace the reference to Article XIII of the Current Constitution with references to the proposed LLC Agreement and By-Laws.
• Rule 100(a)(5) “board of directors” or “Board” currently refers to Article I of the LLC Agreement. The proposed change reflects that this definition will be set forth in Article I of the new Bylaws.
• Rule 100(a)(12) “CMM Rights” currently refers to Article VI of the Current LLC Agreement. The proposed change would relocate the concept of CMM Rights from the Current LLC Agreement to this Rule, and would state that the term CMM Rights means the
• New Rule 100(a)(13) “Competitive Market Maker” would be relocated from Section 13.1(f) of the Current Constitution. Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
• Rules 100(a)(13)-(14) “covered short position” and “discretion,” respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(14)-(15).
• Rule 100(a)(15) “EAM Rights” currently refers to Article VI of the Current LLC Agreement. The proposed change would relocate the concept of EAM Rights from the Current LLC Agreement to this Rule, and would state that EAM Rights means the non-transferable rights held by an Electronic Access Member.
• New Rule 100(a)(17) “Electronic Access Member” would be relocated from Section 13.1(j) of the Current Constitution. Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
• Rules 100(a)(16) and (17) “European-style option,” “Exchange Act” and “Exchange Rights,” respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(18)-(20).
• New Rule 100(a)(21) “Exchange Transaction” would be relocated from Section 13.1(p) of the Current Constitution. Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
• Rules 100(a)(18) and (19) “exercise price” and “Federal Reserve Board,” respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(22) and (23).
• New Rule 100(a)(24) “good standing” would be relocated from Section 13.1(q) of the Current Constitution. Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
• Rules 100(a)(20)-(22) “he,” “him” or “his,” “ISE,” “Nasdaq GEMX,” and “long position,” respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(25)-(27).
• Rule 100(a)(22A) “LLC Agreement” would be deleted as that term would no longer be used in the Rules, as amended by this rule change.
• Rules 100(a)(23)-(35) “Member,” “Membership,” “market makers,” “Market Maker Rights,” “Non-Customer,” “Non-Customer Order,” “offer,” “opening purchase transaction,” “opening writing transaction,” “Voluntary Professional,” “options contract,” “OPRA,” “order” and “outstanding,” respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(28)-(40).
• Rule 100(a)(36) “PMM Rights” currently refers to Article VI of the Current LLC Agreement. The proposed change would relocate the concept of PMM Rights from the Current LLC Agreement to this Rule, and would state that PMM Rights means the non-transferable rights held by a Primary Market Maker.
• New Rule 100(a)(42) “Primary Market Maker” would be relocated from Section 13.1(z) of the Current Constitution. Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
• Rules 100(a)(37), (37A), (37B), (37C), (38)-(48) “primary market,” “Priority Customer,” “Priority Customer Order,” “Professional Order,” “Public Customer,” “Public Customer Order,” “put,” “Quarterly Options Series,” “quote” or “quotation,” “Rules of the Clearing Corporation,” “SEC,” “series of options,” “short position,” “Short Term Option Series” and “SRO,” respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(43), (43A), (43B), (43C), (44)-(54).
• New Rule 100(a)(55) “System” would be relocated from Section 13.1(ee) of the Current Constitution. Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
• Rules 100(a)(49)-(51) “type of option,” “uncovered” and “underlying security,” respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(56)-(58).
In Rule 304(b), the Exchange is proposing to replace the references to the Current Governing Documents with the proposed Bylaws to state that no Exchange member shall exercise voting rights in excess of those permitted under the Bylaws.
In Rule 309 “Limitation on Affiliation between the Exchange and Members,” the Exchange proposes to replace references to “Exchange Director” and “Constitution” with “Member Representative Director” and “By-Laws,” respectively, for the reasons discussed above. Lastly, the proposed changes in Rule 713(a) and Rule 720(a)(1) reflect the renumbering of the defined terms “offer,” “quotations,” “Priority Customer Orders,” “Professional Orders,” and “Priority Customer.”
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt the Board and committee structure and related nomination and election processes set forth in New Governing Documents are consistent with the Act, including Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that a national securities exchange be organized to carry out the purposes of the Act and comply with the requirements of the Act. In general, the proposed changes would make the Exchange's Board and committee composition requirements, and related
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the New Governing Documents support a corporate governance framework that is designed to insulate the Exchange's regulatory functions from its market and other commercial interests so that the Exchange can carry out its regulatory obligations in furtherance of Section 6(b)(1) of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that creation of a ROC, modeled on the approved ROCs of other Nasdaq Exchanges, and the inclusion of the Chief Regulatory Officer in the proposed Bylaws, would underscore the importance of the Exchange's regulatory function and specifically empower an independent committee of the Board to oversee regulation and meet regularly with the Chief Regulatory Officer. Furthermore, proposed language in the New Governing Documents specifically providing that the Exchange's business and the Board's evaluations would include actions and evaluations that support and take into account its regulatory responsibilities under the Act, reinforce the notion that the Exchange is not solely a commercial enterprise, but an SRO subject to the obligations imposed by the Act. The restriction on using Regulatory Funds to pay dividends to the Sole LLC Member further underscores the independence of the Exchange's regulatory function. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed requirements to include Public Directors on the Board (at least two Directors) and that on the ROC (all three Directors) would help to ensure that no single group of market participants will have the ability to systematically disadvantage other market participants through the exchange governance process, and would foster the integrity of the Exchange by providing unique, unbiased perspectives. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the new board and committee structure contemplated by the proposed New Governing Documents is designed to insulate the Exchange's regulatory functions from its market and other commercial interests so that the Exchange can carry out its regulatory obligations in furtherance of Section 6(b)(1) of the Act.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed 20% requirement for Member Representative Directors and the proposed method for selecting Member Representative Directors would ensure fair representation of Exchange members on the Board and allow members to have a voice in the Exchange's use of its self-regulatory authority. In particular, the Exchange notes that the Member Nominating Committee would be composed solely of persons associated with Exchange members and is selected after consultation with representatives of Exchange members. In addition, the new Bylaws include a process by which Exchange members can directly petition and vote for representation on the Board. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to remove the Exchange Director positions and related concepts from its organizational documents is consistent with fair representation requirement under the Act. Specifically, Exchange members will continue to be represented on the Board and on key standing committees, and will have a voice in the selection of Member Representative Directors through the Member Nominating Committee and through their ability to petition and vote on alternate candidates. As noted above, the trading privileges associated with the Exchange Rights, which are currently located in the Exchange's organizational documents, are already substantively in the Exchange's rulebook, and the Rules would be clarified to the extent such Rules refer back to the Current Governing Documents.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed Board and composition requirements set forth in the New Governing Documents is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(3) of the Act, because the Public Director positions on the Board and on the ROC would include the representatives of issuers and investors with no material business relationship with a broker dealer or the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed compositional balance of the proposed committees continues to provide for the fair representation of members in the administration of the affairs of the Exchange. In particular, all members of the new Member Nominating Committee must be associated persons of an Exchange member. In addition, at least 20% of the new QMC must be composed of Member Representative members. Moreover, the proposed compositional requirements provide that the Nominating Committee and the QMC must be compositionally balanced between Industry members and Non-Industry members. The proposed compositional requirements are designed to ensure that members are protected from unfair, unfettered actions by an exchange pursuant to its rules, and that, in general, an exchange is administered in a way that is equitable to all those who trade on its market or through its facilities.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the new corporate governance framework and related processes proposed by the New Governing Documents are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because they are identical to the framework and processes used by the Nasdaq Exchanges, which have been well-established as fair and designed to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that adopting the New Governing Documents based on the NSM model would streamline the Nasdaq Exchanges' governance process, create equivalent governing standards among HoldCo's SROs and also provide clarity to its members, which is beneficial to both investors and the public interest.
Finally, the proposed amendments to the Rules as discussed above are non-substantive changes to clarify the rule text where the Rule referred only to the Current LLC Agreement or to the Current Constitution, and also the technical amendments to renumber certain Rules.
Because the Proposed Rule Change relates to the corporate governance of the Exchange and not to the operations of the Exchange, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the 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 paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's “Schedule of Fees and Charges” relating to the Listing Fee applicable to Exchange Traded Products, effective September 19, 2017. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees and Charges (“Schedule”) relating to the “Listing Fee” applicable to Exchange-Traded Products (“ETPs”), effective September 19, 2017, as described below.
Currently the Schedule does not impose a Listing Fee for the following ETPs listed on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act, and for which a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act is not required to be filed with the Commission:
Certain other ETPs—specifically, Trust Issued Receipts,
The Exchange proposes to amend the Listing Fee applicable to ETPs in two respects. First, the Exchange proposes to reduce the listing fee for Managed Trust Securities from $10,000 to $7,500. Thus, under the proposed change, the same Listing Fee of $7,500 would apply to all non-generically listed ETPs.
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule to provide that, if three or more issues of ETPs, other than Generically-Listed Exchange Traded Products, are issued by the same issuer and are listed on the Exchange in the same calendar year, such issues will be subject to an aggregate maximum Listing Fee of $22,500 for all such listed issues combined.
The Exchange believes reducing the Listing Fee for Managed Trust Securities would result in a uniform Listing Fee for all non-generically listed ETPs and would help correlate the Listing Fee to the resources required to list such issues on the Exchange. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to continue to charge a Listing Fee for ETPs for which a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act is required to be filed because of the additional time and resources required by Exchange staff to prepare and review such filings and to communicate with issuers and the Commission regarding such filings.
With respect to the aggregate maximum Listing Fee of $22,500 for three or more ETPs, as described above, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to provide a cap on the Listing Fee for multiple ETPs from the same issuer, as described above, because such a cap will facilitate the issuance of additional ETPs, which may provide enhanced competition among ETP issuers, while providing a reduction in fees to certain issuers listing multiple ETPs during a calendar year. The proposed cap would apply equally to all issuers listing multiple ETPs on the Exchange during a calendar year. The Exchange believes that a Listing Fee cap, as described above, is appropriate in such cases because the Exchange experiences efficiencies commensurate with the proposed Listing Fee cap in working with issuers on a repeated basis in connection with developing and listing multiple ETPs.
Annual Fees set forth in the Schedule applicable to ETPs would remain unchanged.
Notwithstanding the reduction of the Listing Fee applicable to Managed Trust Securities, as well as the cap of $22,500 for multiple listings of ETPs by the same issuer in a calendar year, as described above, the Exchange will continue to be able to fund its regulatory obligations.
NYSE Arca believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)
With respect to the aggregate maximum Listing Fee of $22,500 for three or more ETPs, as described above, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to provide a cap on the Listing Fee for multiple ETPs from the same issuer because such a cap will facilitate the issuance of additional ETPs, which may provide enhanced competition among ETP issuers, while providing a reduction in fees to certain issuers listing multiple ETPs during a calendar year. The proposed cap would apply equally to all issuers listing multiple ETPs on the Exchange during a calendar year. The Exchange believes that a Listing Fee cap, as described above, is appropriate in such cases because the Exchange experiences efficiencies commensurate with the proposed Listing Fee cap in working with issuers on a repeated basis in connection with developing and listing multiple ETPs.
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to continue to charge a Listing Fee for ETPs for which a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act is required to be filed because of the significant additional extensive time, legal and business resources required by Exchange staff to prepare and review such filings and to communicate with issuers and the Commission regarding such filings.
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 would promote competition because it will reduce the Listing Fee for Managed Trust Securities and cap the aggregate Listing Fee for multiple issues of ETPs in the same calendar year by the same issuer at $22,500, thereby encouraging issuers to develop and list additional such issues on the Exchange.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to reflect a change to the administrator for the London Bullion Market Association (“LBMA”) Silver Price from CME Group, Inc. and Thomson Reuters to ICE Benchmark Administration, effective as of October 2, 2017. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to reflect a change to the administrator for the LBMA Silver Price from CME Group, Inc. (“CME”) and Thomson Reuters to ICE Benchmark Administration (“IBA”), effective as of October 2, 2017, as described further below.
Revised Procedures for the LBMA Silver Price
On July 14, 2017, the LBMA announced that IBA
As the administrator for the LBMA Silver Price benchmark and the operator of the “IBA Silver Auction,” IBA will implement procedures that provide a physically settled, electronic and tradeable auction, with the ability to settle trades in U.S. Dollars (“USD”), euros or British Pounds.
Participants in the auction will include direct participants and sponsored clients of direct participants. Direct participants may enter orders on their own behalf or on behalf of clients. Sponsored clients also may manage their own positions utilizing their own trading screens; however, a sponsored client's orders would be backed by the sponsoring direct participant. WebICE allows sponsored clients to participate in the auction process with the same information and order management capabilities as direct participants.
At the opening of each auction, the auction chairman (“Chairman”) will announce an opening price (in USD) based on the current market conditions and begin auction rounds, with an expected duration of at least every 30 seconds each. During each auction round, participants may enter the volume they wish to buy or sell at that price, and such orders will be part of the price formation. Aggregate bid and offer volume will be shown live on WebICE, providing a level playing field for all participants. At the end of each auction round, the total net volume will be calculated. If this `imbalance' is larger than the imbalance tolerance (currently set at 500,000 oz) then the Chairman will choose a new price
During the auction, the price at the start of each round, and the volumes at the end of each round will be available through major market data vendors. As soon as the auction finishes, the final prices and volumes will be available through major market data vendors. IBA will also publish transparency reports, detailing the prices, volumes and times for each round of the auction. These transparency reports will be available through major market data vendors and IBA when the auction finishes. The process can also be observed real-time through a WebICE screen. The auction mechanism will provide a complete audit trail.
As of August 1, 2017, there were seven direct participants in the LBMA Silver Price administered by CME and Thomson Reuters. The number of direct participants upon IBA's assumption of the role of LBMA Silver Price administrator is expected to equal or exceed the number of market participants currently participating in the auction process that determines the LBMA Silver Price.
As of April 1, 2015, the LBMA Silver Price has been regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) in the United Kingdom (“UK”).
The term “LBMA Silver Price” means the price for an ounce of silver set by LBMA-authorized participating bullion banks and market makers in the electronic, over-the-counter auction operated by IBA at approximately 12:00 noon London time, on each working day and disseminated also by IBA. IBA provides the electronic auction platform on which the price is calculated, while the LBMA accredits market participants. IBA is also responsible for governance and oversight of the LBMA Silver Price, and is regulated by the FCA for its role as the benchmark administrator.
The LBMA Silver Price is regulated under the FCA's Market Conduct (MAR) Sourcebook (MAR 8.3). As the administrator for the LBMA Silver Price, IBA will adopt and issue a Code of Conduct relating to administration of the LBMA Silver Price and undertake to perform the LBMA Silver Price administrator's responsibilities in accordance with MAR 8.3. Among such responsibilities are that the administrator:
(1) Have in place effective arrangements and procedures that allow the regular monitoring and surveillance of the auction process;
(2) monitor the benchmark submissions in order to identify breaches of its practice standards and conduct that may involve manipulation, or attempted manipulation, of the specified benchmark it administers and provide to the oversight committee of the specified benchmark timely updates of suspected breaches of practice standards and attempted manipulation;
(3) notify the FCA and provide all relevant information where it suspects that, in relation to the specified benchmark it administers, there has been (i) a material breach of the benchmark administrator's practice standards; (ii) conduct that may involve manipulation or attempted manipulation of the specified benchmark it administers; or (iii) collusion to manipulate or to attempt to manipulate the specified benchmark it administers;
(4) ensure that the specified benchmark it administers is determined using adequate benchmark submissions; and
(5) establish an oversight committee.
The LBMA Silver Price Oversight Committee reviews and maintains the definition, setting, scope and methodology of the benchmark. The Code of Conduct can be found on the IBA Web site
The price discovery process for the LBMA Silver Price will be subject to surveillance by IBA. IBA is compliant with the UK benchmark regulation (MAR 8.3), regulated by the FCA, and has been formally assessed against the IOSCO Principles for Financial Benchmarks (the “IOSCO Principles”).
The LBMA Silver Price benchmark is viewed as a full and fair representation of all market interest at the conclusion of the auction. IBA's auction process will be fully transparent in real time to direct participants and sponsored clients and, at the close of each auction, to the general public. The auction process also will be fully auditable since an audit trail exists for every change made in the process. Moreover, the audit trail and active surveillance of the auction process by IBA, as well as FCA's oversight of IBA, will deter manipulative and abusive conduct in establishing each day's LBMA Silver Price.
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 LBMA Silver Price benchmark, as administered by IBA, will be based on an auction that is electronic and auditable and is produced from tradeable volumes. The LBMA Silver Price and the transparency reports showing the prices, timings and total volumes for each round will be available electronically instantly after the conclusion of the auction, as described above. The LBMA Silver Price benchmark is viewed as a full and fair representation of all market interest at the conclusion of the auction. IBA's auction process will be fully transparent in real time to direct participants and sponsored clients and, at the close of each auction, to the general public. The auction process also will be fully auditable since an audit trail exists for every change made in the process. Moreover, the audit trail and active surveillance of the auction process by IBA, as well as FCA's oversight of IBA, will deter manipulative and abusive conduct in establishing each day's LBMA Silver Price.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market price discovery process and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that the silver auction will be transparent, auditable, and operated by a regulated benchmark administrator (IBA). The LBMA Silver price is widely disseminated by major market data vendors. The audit trail records every change made in the process and IBA has regulatory obligations to run surveillance on the activity in the process to deter and identify manipulative and abusive conduct in establishing each day's LBMA Silver Price. The LBMA Silver Price, as administered by IBA, is designed to be a benchmark that meets
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will facilitate the continued administration of the LBMA Silver Price utilizing a fully auditable auction process and will promote market competition by permitting the continued listing and trading of shares of the Silver Trusts and the Silver Funds utilizing the LBMA Silver Price.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. As noted above, the administrator for the LBMA Silver Price will change from CME and Thomson Reuters to IBA, effective October 2, 2017. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as it will prevent the disruption in the trading of the Silver Trust and the Silver Fund shares. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
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.
October 2, 2017.
On June 19, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) shares (“Shares”) of the following series of Investment Company Units: (1) iShares National Muni Bond ETF; (2) iShares Short-Term National Muni Bond ETF; (3) VanEck Vectors AMT-Free Intermediate Municipal Index ETF; (4) VanEck Vectors AMT-Free Long Municipal Index ETF; (5) VanEck Vectors AMT-Free Short Municipal Index ETF; (6) VanEck Vectors High-Yield Municipal Index ETF; (7) VanEck Vectors Pre-Refunded Municipal Index ETF; (8) PowerShares VRDO Tax-Free Weekly Portfolio; (9) SPDR Nuveen Bloomberg Barclays Short Term Municipal Bond ETF; (10) SPDR Nuveen Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond ETF (collectively, the “Multistate Municipal Bond Funds”); (11) iShares California Muni Bond ETF; and (12) iShares New York Muni Bond ETF (collectively, the “Single-State Municipal Bond Funds” and, together with the Multistate Municipal Bond Funds, the “Municipal Bond Funds”).
Commentary .02 to Rule 5.2(j)(3) sets forth the generic listing requirements for an index of fixed income securities underlying a series of Investment Company Units. One of the enumerated listing requirements is that component fixed income securities that, in the aggregate, account for at least 75% of the weight of the index each shall have a minimum principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more.
The iShares National Muni Bond ETF seeks to track the investment results of the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, which measures the performance of the investment grade segment of the U.S. municipal bond market. The S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index primarily includes municipal bonds from issuers that are state or local governments or agencies such that the interest on each such bond is exempt from U.S. federal income taxes and the federal alternative minimum tax. Each bond in the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index must have a rating of at least BBB− by S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”), Baa3 by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody's”), or BBB− by Fitch Ratings, Inc. (“Fitch”). Each bond in the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index must be denominated in U.S. dollars, must be a constituent of an offering where the original offering amount was at least $100 million, and must have a minimum par amount of $25 million. To remain in the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, bonds must maintain a minimum par amount greater than or equal to $25 million as of the next rebalancing date.
As of April 1, 2017, the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index included 11,333 component fixed income municipal bond securities from issuers in 47 different states or U.S. territories. The most heavily weighted security in the index represented approximately 0.25% of the total weight of the index and the aggregate weight of the top five most heavily weighted securities in the index represented less than 1% of the total weight of the index. Approximately 99.29% of the weight of the index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities in the offering. Approximately 31.79% of the weight of the components in the index had a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $628,460,731,594, and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $55,454,048.
Generally, the iShares National Muni Bond ETF invests at least 90% of its assets in the component securities of the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index and may invest up to 10% of its assets in certain futures, options and swap contracts, cash and cash equivalents, including shares of money market funds, as well as in securities not included in the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, but which the fund's investment advisor believes will help the fund track the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index.
The iShares Short Term National Muni Bond ETF seeks to track the investment results of the S&P Short Term National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, which measures the performance of the short-term investment grade segment of the U.S. municipal bond market. The S&P Short Term National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index primarily includes municipal bonds from issuers that are state or local governments or agencies such that the interest on each such bond is exempt from U.S. federal income taxes and the federal alternative minimum tax (“AMT”). Each bond in the S&P Short Term National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index must have a rating of at least BBB− by S&P, Baa3 by Moody's, or BBB− by Fitch. Each bond in the S&P Short Term National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index must be
As of April 1, 2017, the S&P Short Term National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index included 3,309 component fixed income municipal bond securities from issuers in 44 different states or U.S. territories. The most heavily weighted security in the index represented approximately 1% of the total weight of the index and the aggregate weight of the top five most heavily weighted securities in the index represented approximately 2% of the total weight of the index. Approximately 98.22% of the weight of the index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities in the offering. Approximately 27.63% of the weight of the components in the index had a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $166,147,941,156, and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $50,210,922.
Generally, the iShares National Muni Bond ETF invests at least 90% of its assets in the component securities of the S&P Short Term National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index and may invest up to 10% of its assets in certain futures, options and swap contracts, cash and cash equivalents, including shares of money market funds, as well as in securities not included in the S&P Short Term National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, but which the fund's investment advisor believes will help the fund track the S&P Short Term National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index.
The VanEck Vectors AMT-Free Intermediate Municipal Index ETF seeks to replicate as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the price and yield performance of the Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Intermediate Continuous Municipal Index. The Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Intermediate Continuous Municipal Index is a market size weighted index comprised of publicly traded municipal bonds that cover the U.S. dollar-denominated intermediate term tax-exempt bond market. To be included in the Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Intermediate Continuous Municipal Index, a bond must be rated Baa3/BBB− or higher by at least two of the following ratings agencies if all three agencies rate the security: Moody's, S&P, and Fitch. If only one of the three agencies rates a security, the rating must be at least Baa3/BBB−. Constituent securities of the Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Intermediate Continuous Municipal Index must have an outstanding par value of at least $7 million and be issued as part of a transaction of at least $75 million.
As of April 1, 2017, the Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Intermediate Continuous Municipal Index included 17,272 component fixed income municipal bond securities from issuers in 50 different states or U.S. territories. The most heavily weighted security in the index represented less than 0.25% of the total weight of the index and the aggregate weight of the top five most heavily weighted securities in the index represented approximately 0.50% of the total weight of the index. Approximately 96.13% of the weight of the index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities in the offering. Approximately 7.75% of the weight of the components in the index had a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $340,102,539,050, and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $19,690,976.
Normally, the VanEck Vectors AMT-Free Intermediate Municipal Index ETF invests at least 80% of its total assets in fixed income securities that comprise the Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Intermediate Continuous Municipal Index.
The VanEck Vectors AMT-Free Long Municipal Index ETF seeks to replicate as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the price and yield performance of the Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Long Continuous Municipal Index. The Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Long Continuous Municipal Index is a market size weighted index comprised of publicly traded municipal bonds that cover the U.S. dollar denominated long-term tax-exempt bond market. To be included in the Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Long Continuous Municipal Index, bonds must be rated Baa3/BBB− or higher by at least two of the following ratings agencies if all three agencies rate the security: Moody's, S&P, and Fitch. If only one of the three agencies rates a security, the rating must be at least Baa3/BBB−. Constituent securities of the Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Long Continuous Municipal Index must have an outstanding par value of at least $7 million and be issued as part of a transaction of at least $75 million.
As of April 1, 2017, the Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Long Continuous Municipal Index included 7,657 component fixed income municipal bond securities from issuers in 50 different states or U.S. territories. The most heavily weighted security in the index represented less than 0.50% of the total weight of the index and the aggregate weight of the top five most heavily weighted securities in the index represented approximately 1.25% of the total weight of the index. Approximately 93.84% of the weight of the index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities in the offering. Approximately 32.34% of the weight of the components in the index had a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $279,575,285,082, and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $36,512,379.
Normally, the VanEck Vectors AMT-Free Long Municipal Index ETF invests at least 80% of its total assets in fixed income securities that comprise the Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Long Continuous Municipal Index.
The VanEck Vectors AMT-Free Short Municipal Index ETF seeks to replicate as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the price and yield performance of the Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Short Continuous Municipal Index. The Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Short Continuous Municipal Index is a market size weighted index comprised of publicly traded municipal bonds that cover the U.S. dollar denominated short-term tax-exempt bond market. To be included in the
As of April 1, 2017, the Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Short Continuous Municipal Index included 7,229 component fixed income municipal bond securities from issuers in 48 different states or U.S. territories. The most heavily weighted security in the index represented approximately 1% of the total weight of the index and the aggregate weight of the top five most heavily weighted securities in the index represented approximately 2.25% of the total weight of the index. Approximately 94.4% of the weight of the index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities in the offering. Approximately 13.60% of the weight of the components in the index had a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $152,020,140,995, and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $21,026,299.
Normally, the VanEck Vectors AMT-Free Short Municipal Index ETF invests at least 80% of its total assets in fixed income securities that comprise the Bloomberg Barclays AMT-Free Short Continuous Municipal Index.
The VanEck Vectors High-Yield Municipal Index ETF seeks to replicate as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the price and yield performance of the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Custom High Yield Composite Index. The Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Custom High Yield Composite Index is a market size weighted index composed of publicly traded municipal bonds that cover the U.S. dollar denominated high yield long-term tax-exempt bond market. The Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Custom High Yield Composite Index is calculated using a market value weighting methodology, provided that the total allocation to issuers from each individual territory of the United States (including Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands) does not exceed 4%. The Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Custom High Yield Composite Index tracks the high yield municipal bond market with a 75% weight in non-investment grade municipal bonds and a targeted 25% weight in Baa/BBB rated investment grade municipal bonds.
As of April 1, 2017, the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Custom High Yield Composite Index included 4,702 component fixed income municipal bond securities from issuers in 50 different states or U.S. territories. The most heavily weighted security in the index represented approximately 1.25% of the total weight of the index, and the aggregate weight of the top five most heavily weighted securities in the index represented approximately 6% of the total weight of the index. Approximately 75.16% of the weight of the index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities in the offering. Approximately 43.26% of the weight of the components in the index had a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $224,318,153,150, and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $47,706,966.
Normally, the VanEck Vectors High-Yield Municipal Index ETF invests at least 80% of its total assets in securities that comprise the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Custom High Yield Composite Index.
The VanEck Vectors Pre-Refunded Municipal Index ETF seeks to replicate as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the price and yield performance of the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Pre-Refunded—Treasury-Escrowed Index. The Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Pre-Refunded—Treasury-Escrowed Index is a market size weighted index comprised of publicly traded municipal bonds that cover the U.S. dollar denominated tax-exempt bond market. The Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Pre-Refunded—Treasury-Escrowed Index is comprised of pre-refunded and/or escrowed-to-maturity municipal bonds. To be included in the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Pre-Refunded—Treasury-Escrowed Index, bonds must have an explicit or implicit credit rating of AAA. Constituent securities of the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Pre-Refunded—Treasury-Escrowed Index must have an outstanding par value of at least $7 million and be issued as part of a transaction of at least $75 million in market value.
As of April 1, 2017, the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Pre-Refunded-Treasury-Escrowed Index included 3,691 component fixed income municipal bond securities from issuers in 50 different states or U.S. territories. The most heavily weighted security in the index represented approximately 0.50% of the total weight of the index and the aggregate weight of the top five most heavily weighted securities in the index represented approximately 2.25% of the total weight of the index. Approximately 93.70% of the weight of the index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities in the offering. Approximately 19.23% of the weight of the components in the index had a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $94,289,476,486, and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $25,545,780.
Normally, the VanEck Vectors Pre-Refunded Municipal Index ETF invests at least 80% of its total assets in securities that comprise the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Pre-Refunded—Treasury-Escrowed Index.
The PowerShares VRDO Tax-Free Weekly Portfolio seeks investment results that generally correspond (before fees and expenses) to the price and yield of the Bloomberg U.S. Municipal AMT-Free Weekly VRDO Index. The Bloomberg U.S. Municipal AMT-Free Weekly VRDO Index is comprised of municipal securities issued in the primary market as variable rate demand obligation (“VRDO”) bonds. Only VRDOs whose interest rates are reset weekly are included in the Bloomberg U.S. Municipal AMT-Free Weekly VRDO Index, and the Bloomberg U.S. Municipal AMT-Free Weekly VRDO Index excludes secondary or derivative VRDOs (tender option bonds). To be
As of April 1, 2017, the Bloomberg US Municipal AMT-Free Weekly VRDO Index included 1,494 component fixed income municipal bond securities from issuers in 49 different states or U.S. territories. The most heavily weighted security in the index represented approximately 0.75% of the total weight of the index and the aggregate weight of the top five most heavily weighted securities in the index represented approximately 2.75% of the total weight of the index. Approximately 44.76% of the weight of the index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities in the offering. Approximately 34.88% of the weight of the components in the index had a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $68,489,564,000, and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $45,843,082.
Generally, the PowerShares VRDO Tax-Free Weekly Portfolio invests at least 80% of its total assets in VRDO bonds that are exempt from federal income tax with interest rates that reset weekly that comprise the Bloomberg U.S. Municipal AMT-Free Weekly VRDO Index.
The SPDR Nuveen Bloomberg Barclays Short Term Municipal Bond ETF seeks to provide investment results that, before fees and expenses, correspond generally to the price and yield performance of the Bloomberg Barclays Managed Money Municipal Short Term Index which tracks the short term tax exempt municipal bond market. The Bloomberg Barclays Managed Money Municipal Short Term Index is designed to track the publicly traded municipal bonds that cover the U.S. dollar denominated short term tax exempt bond market, including state and local general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, pre-refunded bonds, and insured bonds. All bonds in the Bloomberg Barclays Managed Money Municipal Short Term Index must be rated Aa3/AA− or higher by at least two of the following statistical ratings agencies: Moody's, S&P, or Fitch. If only one of the agencies rates the security, the rating must be at least Aa3/AA−. Each security in the Bloomberg Barclays Managed Money Municipal Short Term Index must have an outstanding par value of at least $7 million and be issued as part of a transaction of at least $75 million.
As of April 1, 2017, the Bloomberg Barclays Managed Money Municipal Short Term Index included 4,263 component fixed income municipal bond securities from issuers in 44 different states or U.S. territories. The most heavily weighted security in the index represented approximately 0.75% of the total weight of the index, and the aggregate weight of the top five most heavily weighted securities in the index represented approximately 2% of the total weight of the index. Approximately 94.54% of the weight of the index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities in the offering. Approximately 10.82% of the weight of the components in the index had a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $85,187,709,681, and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $19,983,042.
Under normal market conditions, the SPDR Nuveen Bloomberg Barclays Short Term Municipal Bond ETF generally invests substantially all, but at least 80%, of its total assets in the securities comprising the Bloomberg Barclays Managed Money Municipal Short Term Index or in securities that the fund's sub-adviser determines have economic characteristics that are substantially identical to the economic characteristics of the securities that comprise the Bloomberg Barclays Managed Money Municipal Short Term Index. In addition, the SPDR Nuveen Bloomberg Barclays Short Term Municipal Bond ETF may invest in debt securities that are not included in the Bloomberg Barclays Managed Money Municipal Short Term Index, cash and cash equivalents or money market instruments, such as repurchase agreements and money market funds.
The Exchange states that, according to its prospectus, the SPDR Nuveen Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond ETF seeks to provide investment results that, before fees and expenses, correspond generally to the price and yield performance of the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Managed Money Index which tracks the U.S. municipal bond market. The Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Managed Money Index is designed to track the U.S. long term tax-exempt bond market, including state and local general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, pre-refunded bonds, and insured bonds. The Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Managed Money Index is comprised of tax-exempt municipal securities issued by states, cities, counties, districts and their respective agencies. The Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Managed Money Index also includes municipal lease obligations, which are securities issued by state and local governments and authorities to finance the acquisition of equipment and facilities. All bonds in the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Managed Money Index must be rated Aa3/AA− or higher by at least two of the following statistical ratings agencies: Moody's, S&P, and Fitch. If only one of the agencies rates the security, the rating must be at least Aa3/AA−. Each security in the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Managed Money Index must have an outstanding par value of at least $7 million and be issued as part of a transaction of at least $75 million.
As of April 1, 2017, the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Managed Money Index included 22,247 component fixed income municipal bond securities from issuers in 48 different states or U.S. territories. The most heavily weighted security in the index represented less than 0.25% of the total weight of the index, and the aggregate weight of the top five most heavily weighted securities in the index represented approximately 0.50% of the total weight of the index. Approximately 95.05% of the weight of the index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities in the offering. Approximately 13.35% of the weight of the components in the index had a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $496,240,108,998, and the average
Under normal market conditions, the SPDR Nuveen Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond ETF generally invests substantially all, but at least 80%, of its total assets in the securities comprising the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Managed Money Index or in securities that the fund's sub-adviser determines have economic characteristics that are substantially identical to the economic characteristics of the securities that comprise the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Managed Money Index. In addition, the SPDR Nuveen Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond ETF may invest in debt securities that are not included in the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Managed Money Index, cash and cash equivalents or money market instruments, such as repurchase agreements and money market funds.
The iShares California Muni Bond ETF seeks to track the investment results of the S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, which measures the performance of the investment grade segment of the California municipal bond market. The S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index is a subset of the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index and is comprised of municipal bonds issued in the State of California. The S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index primarily includes municipal bonds from issuers in California that are California state or local governments or agencies whose interest payments are exempt from U.S. federal and California state income taxes and the federal alternative minimum tax. Each bond in the S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index must have a rating of at least BBB− by S&P, Baa3 by Moody's, or BBB− by Fitch. Each bond in the S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index must be denominated in U.S. dollars, must be a constituent of an offering where the original offering amount was at least $100 million, and must have a minimum par amount of $25 million. To remain in the S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, bonds must maintain a minimum par amount greater than or equal to $25 million as of the next rebalancing date.
As of April 1, 2017, the S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index included 2,115 component fixed income municipal bond securities from more than 150 distinct municipal bond issuers in the State of California. The most heavily weighted security in the index represented approximately 0.50% of the total weight of the index, and the aggregate weight of the top five most heavily weighted securities in the index represented approximately 2.75% of the total weight of the index. Approximately 96.31% of the weight of the index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities in the offering. Approximately 38.89% of the weight of the components in the index had a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $137,796,471,640, and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $65,151,996.
Generally, the iShares California Muni Bond ETF invests at least 90% of its assets in the component securities of the S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index and may invest up to 10% of its assets in certain futures, options and swap contracts, cash and cash equivalents, including shares of money market funds, as well as in securities not included in the S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, but which the fund's investment advisor believes will help the fund track the S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index.
The iShares New York Muni Bond ETF seeks to track the investment results of the S&P New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, which measures the performance of the investment grade segment of the New York municipal bond market. The S&P New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index is a subset of the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index and is comprised of municipal bonds issued in the State of New York. The S&P New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index primarily includes municipal bonds from issuers in New York that are New York state or local governments or agencies whose interest payments are exempt from U.S. federal and New York State personal income taxes and the federal alternative minimum tax. Each bond in the S&P New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index must have a rating of at least BBB− by S&P, Baa3 by Moody's, or BBB− by Fitch. Each bond in the S&P New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index must be denominated in U.S. dollars, must be a constituent of an offering where the original offering amount was at least $100 million, and must have a minimum par amount of $25 million. To remain in the S&P New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, bonds must maintain a minimum par amount greater than or equal to $25 million as of the next rebalancing date.
As of April 1, 2017, the S&P New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index included 2,191 component fixed income municipal bond securities from more than 20 distinct municipal bond issuers in the State of New York. The most heavily weighted security in the index represented approximately 1.50% of the total weight of the index, and the aggregate weight of the top five most heavily weighted securities in the index represented approximately 4.25% of the total weight of the index. Approximately 98.63% of the weight of the index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities in the offering. Approximately 34.50% of the weight of the components in the index had a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $124,381,556,872, and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the index was approximately $56,769,309.
Generally, the iShares New York Muni Bond ETF invests at least 90% of its assets in the component securities of the S&P New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index and may invest up to 10% of its assets in certain futures, options and swap contracts, cash and cash equivalents, including shares of money market funds, as well as in securities not included in the S&P New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index x, but which the fund's investment advisor believes will help the fund track the S&P New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index.
The Exchange states that it is appropriate to continue to list and trade the Shares based on the characteristics of the indexes underlying the Municipal Bond Funds. According to the Exchange, each index underlying the Municipal Bond Funds satisfies all of the generic listing requirements for Investment Company Units based on a fixed income index, except for the minimum principal amount outstanding requirement of Commentary .02(a)(2) to Rule 5.2(j)(3). The Exchange asserts that a fundamental purpose behind the minimum principal amount outstanding requirement is to ensure that component
With respect to the Multistate Municipal Bond Funds, the Exchange states: (1) Each underlying index is broad-based and currently includes, on average, more than 8,000 component securities; (2) currently each underlying index includes securities issued by municipal entities in more than 40 states or U.S. territories, and notes that the applicable generic listing criterion requires that an index contain securities issued by at least 13 non-affiliated issuers;
With respect to the Single-State Municipal Bond Funds, the Exchange states that each underlying index is well-diversified to protect against index manipulation. To support this, the Exchange states: (1) On average, the underlying indexes include more than 1,500 securities; (2) each underlying index includes securities from at least 20 distinct municipal bond issuers; and (3) the most heavily weighted security in any of the underlying indexes represents approximately 2% of the weight of the index, and the aggregate weight of the five most heavily weighted securities in any of the indexes represents approximately 6.25% of the total index weight.
The Exchange represents that: (1) On a continuous basis, each index underlying a Municipal Bond Fund will contain at least 500 component securities; (2) currently, each index satisfies all of the generic listing requirements under NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) except for Commentary .02(a)(2); (3) the continued listing criteria under Rules 5.2(j)(3) (except for Commentary .02(a)(2)) and 5.5(g)(2) applicable to Investment Company Units will apply to the Shares; and (4) the issuer of each Municipal Bond Fund is required to comply with Rule10A-3
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
As noted above, the Exchange has submitted this proposed rule change because the Shares of the Municipal Bond Funds do not meet all of the generic listing requirements set forth in Commentary.02 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3). In the proposal, the Exchange describes certain characteristics of the underlying indexes as of April 1, 2017,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by October 27, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by November 13, 2017. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in Amendment No. 1,
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7051, which sets forth the schedule of fees that the Exchange charges to its clients for connecting directly to the Exchange's data centers and/or receiving third party market data feeds and other non-Exchange services from the Exchange via circuits provided by third party telecommunications providers.
While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on October 1, 2017.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7051, which sets forth the schedule of fees that the Exchange charges to its clients for connecting directly to the Exchange's data centers and/or receiving third party market data feeds and other non-Exchange services from the Exchange via circuits provided by third party telecommunications providers.
Subscribers may use the connectivity provided under Rule 7051 to link them
For direct connectivity to Nasdaq, Rule 7051(a) provides for 1 GB, 1 GB Ultra, and 10 GB Ultra hand-offs. The installation fee for all such connections is $1,500 and the monthly fee is $7,500 for 10 GB connections and $2,500 for both 1 GB and 1 GB Ultra hand-offs. The Exchange also charges a $925 fee to customers that choose to install a cable router in its data center and a monthly fee of $150 for customers that choose to install equipment in the Exchange's data center to support the connectivity.
For direct connectivity to third party services, Rule 7051(b) provides for 1GB Ultra and 10 GB Ultra hand-offs. The installation fee for both 10 GB Ultra and 1 GB Ultra direct connections is $1,500. Meanwhile, the monthly fee is $5,000 for 10 GB Ultra connections and $2,000 for 1 GB Ultra hand-offs. For 1 GB Ultra or 10 GB Ultra connections for UTP only, the installation fee and monthly fee is waived for the first two connections and thereafter the installation fee is $100 and the monthly fee is also $100. Again, the Exchange charges a $925 fee to customers that choose to install a cable router in its data center for purposes of receiving these third party services and a monthly fee of $150 for customers that choose to install equipment in the Exchange's data center to support the connectivity.
In order to reflect the changing nature of the Exchange's ecosystem and of the connection technologies it employs, the Exchange proposes to clarify Rule 7051 in several respects.
First, the Exchange proposes to list separately those fees it charges for certain connectivity that it presently includes under the general heading of Direct Connectivity, pursuant to Rule 7051(a). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to break out the fees it charges to clients that connect directly to the Exchange through a “Point of Presence” or “POP” from the fees it charges to clients that connect through a direct circuit connection. In contrast to a traditional direct circuit connection, in which a client uses an external telecommunications provider's circuit to connect directly to the Exchange's primary data center in Carteret, New Jersey, a “POP” connection is one in which a client directly connects to the Exchange at one of its satellite data centers located elsewhere. Each such POP, in turn, has a fully redundant connection to the Exchange's primary data center.
The Exchange proposes to list POP connectivity fees separately from traditional direct circuit connectivity fees because it wishes to highlight POP connectivity as a distinct connection option, particularly as it contemplates expanding the numbers and locations of its POPs in the future.
To effect the foregoing change, the Exchange proposes to add a new subsection (c) to Rule 7051 entitled “Point of Presence Connectivity.” Under proposed Rule 7051(c), the installation and monthly fees that the Exchange proposes to charge expressly for POP connectivity would not be new fees and they would differ only in name, and not in amount, from those fees that clients presently pay under Rule 7051(a) for the same connectivity. The new subsection would provide for clients to choose between 10 GB Ultra and 1 GB Ultra bandwidth hand-offs for connections to POPs. However, the proposed subsection (c) will not include charges for installing optional cable routers or cabinet space rentals insofar as clients may not install routers in or rent cabinet space directly from the Exchange at the POPs. Likewise, proposed subsection (c) will not include fees for regular 1 GB hand-offs insofar such hand-offs are not available for connections to POPs.
In addition to the above, the Exchange proposes to update the headings of Rule 7051(a) and (b) so that they more accurately reflect the nature of the services to which they apply. Because Rule 7051(a) and (b) list the fees that the Exchange charges customers for installing and maintaining direct telecommunications “circuit” connectivity with the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to change the heading of subsection (a) from “Direct Connectivity to Nasdaq” to “Direct Circuit Connection to Nasdaq” and the heading of subsection (b) from “Direct Connectivity to Third Party Services” to “Direct Circuit Connection to Third Party Services.”
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7051 to state that the connectivity provided under the Rule also applies to connectivity to the markets of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, NASDAQ BX, Inc., NASDAQ PHLX LLC, Nasdaq ISE LLC, Nasdaq MRX LLC, and Nasdaq GEMX LLC. This purpose of this proposal is to specify that a client can use the connections it establishes and maintains under the Rule to connect, not only to the Exchange, but also to any or all of its sister Exchanges, and in doing so, it will be billed only once. Certain of the Exchange's other Rules already include similar language, including Rules 7030 and 7034. The Exchange wishes now to add such language to Rule 7051.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to separately list its fees for POP connectivity is reasonable as a means of clearly distinguishing POP connectivity from traditional direct circuit connectivity as set forth in Rule 7051(a). The proposal will not assess any new or different fees to customers that connect to the Exchange through POPs. Instead, the proposal will merely re-characterize the fees that clients presently pay under Rule 7051(a) as relating specifically to POP connectivity. The Exchange also believes that this proposal is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply all similarly situated clients that connect through POPs.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to modify the headings of subsections (a) and (b) of Rule 7051 is also reasonable because it clarifies that the fees in these subsections pertain specifically to connections to the Exchange that involve circuits provided by external telecommunications providers. Again, this proposal is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory in that it will apply to all clients that use such direct circuits to connect to the Exchange.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable and nondiscriminatory to clarify that each of the connection options and fees set forth in Rule 7051 generally provide for connectivity to The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, NASDAQ BX, Inc., NASDAQ PHLX LLC, Nasdaq ISE LLC, Nasdaq MRX LLC, and Nasdaq GEMX LLC. The Exchange does not restrict its clients from utilizing their direct
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal merely clarifies the Exchange's existing services and associated fees and the Exchange does not anticipate that such clarifications will have any impact on competition whatsoever.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Scrap Metal Services Terminal Railroad Company (Indiana), LLC (SMSRRIN), 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 SMSRRIN, there are no mileposts associated with the East Chicago Transload Facility trackage. SMSRRIN states that the trackage is used in conjunction with interchanging to and from Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad carloads of scrap metal for transloading into trucks for delivery to metal working manufacturers.
SMSRRIN asserts that, because the trackage in question will constitute the entire line of railroad of SMSRRIN, 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 SMSRRIN states in its verified notice that the operations were proposed to be consummated on or about September 15, 2017, this transaction may not be consummated until October 21, 2017 (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
SMSRRIN 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. SMSRRIN 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 13, 2017 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36145, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW.,
According to SMSRRIN, 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.
Office of the United States Trade Representative
Notice; correction.
The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) published a document in the
Direct questions about submission of comments to Yvonne Jamison at (202) 395-3475. Direct substantive questions to Sarah Stewart at (202) 395-7320.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before October 16, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0891 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Lynette Mitterer, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Renton, Washington.
Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by UDOT on behalf of FHWA, and Federal agencies.
This notice announces certain actions taken by UDOT on behalf of FHWA and other Federal agencies. The actions relate to a proposed highway project located on Interstate 80 (I-80),
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of UDOT, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before March 5, 2018. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
For UDOT
Effective July 1, 2008 and renewed on July 1, 2011, June 30, 2014, and June 23, 2017, FHWA assigned, and UDOT assumed, all environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 326 Categorical Exclusion Assignment Memorandum of Understanding. Notice is hereby given that UDOT has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the I-80; Parleys Summit to Jeremy Ranch Westbound Truck Lane project in the State of Utah. This project proposes to improve I-80 from approximate MP 136 to approximate MP 142.1 to address safety issues associated with semi-truck congestion, reduce the potential for wildlife/motorists incidents, and address deficient pavement conditions located in the counties of Salt Lake and Summit, Utah. The project consists of the following elements: (1) Add an additional westbound truck climbing lane from approximate MP 138.3 to 141.8; (2) constructing a wildlife bridge over I-80 at approximate MP 139 and installing exclusionary wildlife fencing and escape ramps through the project; and (3) pavement rehabilitation along all east- and westbound lanes throughout the corridor. These improvements were identified in the Categorical Exclusion for the project. The actions by UDOT and the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the project (I-80; Parleys Summit to Jeremy Ranch Westbound Truck Lane in Salt Lake and Summit Counties, Utah, Project No. F-I80-4(151)139), approved on June 26, 2017, and in other documents in the UDOT project records. The CE and other project records are available by contacting UDOT at the address provided above.
This notice applies to the CE, the Section 4(f) Determination, the NHPA Section 106 Review, the ESA Section 7 Effects Determination, the Noise Assessment, and all other UDOT and Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to the following laws (including their implementing regulations):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA. The actions relate to a proposed highway project, West Davis Corridor (Project S-0067(14)0) starting in Centerville, Utah and ending in West Point, Utah in Davis County, Utah. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before March 5, 2018. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
For FHWA contact Paul Ziman, Area Manager, Federal Highway Administration, 2520 West 4700 South, Suite 9A, Salt Lake City, UT 84118, Telephone: (801) 955-3525, Email:
Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken final agency action subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing an approval for the following highway project in the State of Utah. The primary purposes of the West Davis Corridor project are to reduce delay and congestion in western Davis and Weber Counties. As proposed the project is about 19 miles and would be a four-lane divided highway with a 250-foot right-of-way width from I-15 in Farmington to Antelope Drive in Davis County. From Antelope Drive to 1800 North in West Point, the B Alternatives would be a 146-foot-wide, limited-access, two-lane highway. The action of approval by FHWA and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project, approved on June 23, 2017, in the FHWA Record of Decision (ROD) issued
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions that are final as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
23 U.S.C. 139
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for the obligation of Federal-aid funds for 4 California projects involving the acquisition of vehicles under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program on the condition that they be assembled in the U.S., on the basis that there are no domestic manufacturers that produce the vehicles identified in this notice in such a way that all their steel and iron elements are manufactured domestically.
The effective date of the waiver is October 10, 2017.
For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Gerald Yakowenko, FHWA Office of Program Administration, 202-366-1562, or via email at
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the
This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for the obligation of Federal-aid funds for 4 California projects involving the acquisition of vehicles under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program. The waiver would apply to approximately 29 vehicle acquisitions on the condition that they be assembled in the United States. These involve 17 compressed natural gas solid waste trucks for the City of Visalia (CMLNI-5044(117)), 1 propane powered school bus for the City of Visalia (CMLNI-5044(119)), 6 diesel refuse trucks for the City of Tulare (CMLNI-5072(061)), and 5 compressed natural gas refuse trucks for the City of Porterville (CMLNI-5122(086)).
Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 635.410 requires that steel or iron materials (including protective coatings) that will be permanently incorporated in a Federal-aid project must be domestically manufactured. For FHWA, this means that all the processes that modified the chemical content, physical shape or size, or final finish of the material (from initial melting and mixing, continuing through the bending and coating) occurred in the United States. The statute and regulations create a process for granting waivers from the Buy America requirements when its application would be inconsistent with the public interest or when satisfactory quality domestic steel and iron products are not sufficiently available. In 1983, FHWA determined that it was both in the public interest and consistent with the legislative intent to waive Buy America for manufactured products other than steel manufactured products. However, FHWA's national waiver for manufactured products does not apply to the requests in this notice because they involve predominately steel and iron manufactured products. The FHWA's Buy America requirements do not have special provisions for applying Buy America to “rolling stock” such as vehicles or vehicle components (see 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(C), 49 CFR 661.11, and 49 U.S.C. 24405(a)(2)(C) for examples of Buy America rolling stock provisions for other DOT agencies).
Based on all the information available to the agency, FHWA concludes that there are no manufacturers that produce the vehicles identified in this notice in such a way that all their steel and iron elements are manufactured domestically. The FHWA's Buy America
Consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31), FHWA published two notices seeking comments whether a waiver is appropriate on its Web site,
In accordance with the provisions of section 117 of the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Technical Corrections Act of 2008” (Pub. L. 110-244), FHWA is providing this notice of its finding that a non-availability waiver of Buy America requirements is appropriate on the condition that the vehicles identified in the notice are assembled domestically. The FHWA invites public comment on this finding for an additional 15 days following the effective date of the finding. Comments may be submitted to FHWA's Web site via the link provided to the waiver page noted above.
23 U.S.C. 313; Pub. L. 110-161, 23 CFR 635.410
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated August 22, 2017, Siemens Mobility Division Rolling Stock (Siemens) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from the requirements of 49 CFR 238.103 (Fire safety). FRA assigned the petition docket number FRA-2017-0085.
Section 238.103 of Title 49 of the CFR requires materials used in the construction of passenger cars to meet the test methods and performance criteria for the flammability and smoke emission characteristics of Appendix B to part 238. Appendix B requires all thermal and acoustic insulation material used in the construction of passenger rail vehicles to be tested in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 162.98 with a radiant panel index of Is ≤ 25, and ASTM E 662-01 with a specific optical density Ds (4.0) ≤ 100.
In constructing twenty passenger coaches for use in phase 1 of the Brightline/All Aboard Florida (AAF) passenger service between Miami and West Palm Beach, Siemens used a “K-Flex Eco” material that has been tested with the results of Is = 202 and Ds (4.0) = 131. Siemens is requesting a waiver from Appendix B as applied to these two requirements, asserting that the “fire risk . . . is negligible and an equivalent level of safety is maintained” considering the end use configuration of the material and the small amount of the material used” Siemens further indicates it intends the waiver to provide sufficient information to demonstrate an equivalent level of safety in order to prevent the replacement of the K-Flex Eco insulation material in the 20 coaches. Siemens also notes that granting the requested relief would have a considerable positive impact on the project schedule and associated costs.
In support of its petition, Siemens attached two documents: (1) AAF Coach SFT Water Pipe Insulation Discussion V5 (A 13-page presentation showing pipe insulation material, its usage on AAF coaches, for drain and fresh water pipes, as well as locations of the usage); and (2) a 53-page document titled, “Fire Safety Analysis; Use of K-Flex Eco Insulation in All Aboard Florida Coaches.” (SII-ENA-215 Rev. B). This document provided the analysis supporting Siemens' safety equivalency claim.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by November 6, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under part 211 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on August 21, 2017, the Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations in 49 CFR part 214. FRA assigned the petition docket number FRA-2017-0084.
NS requests a waiver of compliance from § 214.336(c) as it pertains to procedures for adjacent controlled track movements at 25 miles per hour (mph) or less. NS indicates this request is specific to a unique working group, the R-3 Dual Rail Gang (R-3 Gang). This group is a system-level production gang comprised of 78 employees and 40 roadway maintenance machines with the capability to remove both rails while simultaneously installing both new rails. NS states no other railroad has a work group that operates in this manner to replace both rails; the relief requested in the waiver would apply only to this specific work group.
NS is seeking a waiver from using the gauge position of the rail as the point for the plane that is not to be broken on the occupied track. Instead, NS seeks to use the removed rails of the occupied track as an envelope for on-ground work performed exclusively between these rails for the employees working in the R-3 Gang. NS asserts the work can be performed safely within the context of the R-3 Gang's work. As described by NS in its petition, during dual rail replacement, both rails are simultaneously removed from the track structure and positioned on the ballast against the outside of the crossties on the occupied track. In this position, the removed rail is nearly 16.75 inches closer to the adjacent controlled track than its normal gage position on the crosstie. Once the rails are removed from their normal position on the crosstie, an adzing machine is used to remove any tie cutting from the crosstie. At this point in the process, there is not a clearly defined outside limit with respect to “the on-ground work performed exclusively between the rails.” NS states that the removed rail lying on the ballast against the end of the crosstie provides a clear line of demarcation that is easily identifiable to its employees.
NS is also seeking a waiver from the requirement that on-ground work be performed exclusively between the rails (
A copy of the petition, as well as any other written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by November 20, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under part 211 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document amends prior public notice that on August 30, 2017, the Yadkin Valley Railroad (YVRR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for approval of an Informational Filing (IF) pursuant to 49 CFR 236.913(j).
The YVRR submitted an IF requesting FRA approval to conduct field testing of a Train Detection System supplied by Next Generation Rail Technologies S.L. (NGRT) at Bethania Road highway-rail crossing in Rural Hall, North Carolina. After installation of the system, the proposed period of data collection will be approximately four months. YVRR asserts that its IF addresses all requirements of 49 CFR 236.913(j)(1), and that the Train Detection System will be operating in shadow mode only to collect data, and will not interfere, impact, or communicate with the current signaling system.
FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2017-0083, and published notice of the petition in the
This document provides additional information and corrections to the notice published September 18, 2017, regarding this docket. The September 18 notice included an inaccurate description of the filing, and omitted language providing an opportunity and instructions for public comment.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by November 20, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on September 11, 2017, Central Montana Rail, Inc. (CMR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the hours of service laws contained at Title 49 United States Code Section 21103(a) under authority of section 21102(b). FRA assigned the petition docket number FRA-2001-10948.
CMR requested an extension of its existing waiver of relief from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 21103(a), which prohibits a train employee from remaining or going on duty for a period in excess of 12 consecutive hours. 49 U.S.C. 21102(b) allows railroads with 15 or fewer employees to be exempted from the restriction outlined at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(2), but the exemption may not authorize a carrier to require or allow its employees to be on duty more than a total of 16 hours in a 24-hour period. In support of its request, CMR explained that the allowance for train crews to accumulate up to 16 hours of time on duty has not impacted safety negatively, and is only used occasionally, to address unusual circumstances such as weather, traffic peaks, and employee illness. CMR states that its operation continues on approximately the same scale as when the initial waiver was granted, with seven regular full-time employees. A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
• Web site:
•
•
•
Communications received by November 20, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on August 25, 2017, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 213, Track Safety Standards. The docket number associated with this petition is FRA-1999-5102.
SEPTA seeks to extend its existing waiver from 49 CFR 213.233(c), relating to the frequency of the required visual track inspections for FRA Class 3 and 4 track carrying passenger traffic. FRA issued the initial waiver on July 24, 2000, and FRA extended the waiver on August 4, 2003, February 28, 2008, and April 25, 2013 for three 5-year periods.
SEPTA requests an extension of its existing waiver to conduct fewer visual track inspections than required by § 213.233(c), specifically for tracks constructed with continuous welded rail that carry passenger traffic. SEPTA proposes to continue conducting one visual track inspection per week, instead of the two inspections per week that are required, and to supplement its visual inspections with the operation of an automated track geometry measuring vehicle over the affected main tracks and sidings four times per year. SEPTA has owned and operated such a measuring vehicle since 1992.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Web site:
•
•
•
Communications received by November 20, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability and request for comments.
This document provides the public notice that North County Transit District (NCTD) submitted to FRA its Positive Train Control Safety Plan (PTCSP) Volume I-Main Body (Version 2.0) and Volume II-Appendices (Version 1.0), both dated September 1, 2017. NCTD asks FRA to approve its PTCSP and issue a Positive Train Control (PTC) System Certification for NCTD's Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS).
FRA will consider communications received by November 6, 2017 before taking final action on the PTCSP. FRA may consider comments received after that date if practicable.
All communications concerning this proceeding should identify Docket Number 2010-0049 and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Dr. Mark Hartong, Senior Scientific Technical Advisor, at (202) 493-1332 or
In its PTCSP, NCTD asserts that the I-ETMS system it is implementing is designed as a vital overlay PTC system as defined in 49 CFR 236.1015(e)(2). The PTCSP describes NCTD's I-ETMS implementation and the associated I-ETMS safety processes, safety analyses, and test, validation, and verification processes used during the development of I-ETMS. The PTCSP also contains NCTD's operational and support requirements and procedures.
NCTD's PTCSP and the accompanying request for approval and system certification are available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to comment on the PTCSP by submitting written comments or data. During its review of the PTCSP, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted. However, FRA may elect not to respond to any particular comment and, under 49 CFR 236.1009(d)(3), FRA maintains the authority to approve or disapprove the PTCSP at its sole discretion. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing regarding NCTD's PTCSP because the circumstances do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, the party should notify FRA in writing before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for his or her request.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Joint notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the OCC, the Board, and the FDIC (the agencies) may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The agencies, under the auspices of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), have approved the publication for public comment of the proposed Annual Dodd-Frank Act Company-Run Stress Test Report for Depository Institutions and Holding Companies with $10-$50 Billion in Total Consolidated Assets (FFIEC 016). This proposed report would combine the agencies' three separate, yet identical, stress test report forms (as described in the
The Board, in connection with this proposal and conditioned on the final adoption of the FFIEC 016, is proposing to replace the FR Y-16 (Annual Company-Run Stress Test Report For State Member Banks, Bank Holding Companies, and Savings and Loan Holding Companies with Total Consolidated Assets Greater Than $10 Billion and Less Than $50 Billion), which it currently uses to collect the annual company-run stress test results. Also in connection with the final adoption of the FFIEC 016, the OCC and the FDIC are proposing to replace the OCC's DFAST 10-50B (Annual Company-Run Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $10 Billion to $50 Billion under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act), and the FDIC's DFAST 10-50 (Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $10 Billion to $50 Billion under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act), respectively, with the FFIEC 016.
The respondents for the proposed FFIEC 016 are institutions with average total consolidated assets of at least $10 billion, but less than $50 billion. The proposed FFIEC 016 would take effect for the December 31, 2017, as-of date of the stress test report. The submission deadline for the report would be the following July 31.
At the end of the comment period for this notice, the comments and recommendations received will be reviewed to determine whether the FFIEC and the agencies should modify the proposal for the FFIEC 016 report
Comments must be submitted on or before December 5, 2017.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to any or all of the agencies. All comments, which should refer to the OMB control number(s), will be shared among the agencies.
You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
•
•
•
•
•
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by fax to (202) 395-6974; or by email to
For further information about the proposed FFIEC report discussed in this notice, please contact any of the agency staff whose names appear below. In addition, a copy of the proposed FFIEC 016 reporting form is available on the FFIEC's Web site (
The agencies propose to implement the FFIEC 016 report form to replace the following report forms, which are approved collections of information: Board's FR Y-16, Annual Company-Run Stress Test Report For State Member Banks, Bank Holding Companies, and Savings and Loan Holding Companies with Total Consolidated Assets Greater Than $10 Billion and Less Than $50 Billion (OMB Control No. 7100-0356); FDIC's DFAST 10-50, Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $10 Billion to $50 Billion under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (OMB Control No. 3064-0187); and OCC's DFAST 10-50B, Annual Company-Run Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $10 Billion to $50 Billion under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (OMB Control No. 1557-0311). These existing report forms collect identical information; however, the respondent institutions for each form vary based on each agency's supervisory jurisdiction.
The proposed FFIEC 016 information collection will be mandatory for institutions with average total consolidated assets of at least $10 billion, but less than $50 billion. The FFIEC 016 implements the reporting of the annual company-run stress testing required of such institutions under section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203 (Dodd-Frank Act), and each agency's implementing regulation.
The FFIEC 016 report would be submitted by institutions supervised by the agencies with average total consolidated assets of at least $10 billion, but less than $50 billion, to report their company-run stress test results. These reports collect quantitative projections of balance sheet assets and liabilities, income, losses, and capital across three scenarios (baseline, adverse, and severely adverse) and qualitative information on methodologies used to develop these internal projections.
Data received in the agencies' $10-$50 billion annual Dodd-Frank Act company-run stress test reports are used in connection with supervision and regulation of these institutions to form supervisory assessments of the quality of a company's stress-testing process and, overall, as part of the broader assessment of a company's capital adequacy and risk management process. Data collected in these reports provide the agencies with one of many tools available to examiners to assist in the analysis and assessment of a company's capital position and planning process.
Each agency has issued rules applicable to the banking organizations it supervises with total consolidated assets of at least $10 billion, but less than $50 billion, that implement the company-run stress testing requirement promulgated by section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The annual as-of date of the stress test report is December 31, and the submission deadline for the report is the following July 31.
Currently, the agencies maintain separate, yet identical, report forms (FR Y-16, FDIC DFAST 10-50, and OCC DFAST 10-50B) for the banks, savings associations, and holding companies they supervise to report these company-run stress test results. These annual reports collect quantitative projections of balance sheet assets and liabilities, income, losses, and capital across a range of macroeconomic and financial scenarios as well as qualitative supporting information on the methodologies and processes used to develop those internal projections. The agencies are proposing to combine these separate data collections and designate the combined report as a uniform FFIEC data collection. As part of their proposed adoption of the new FFIEC 016 report, the agencies also are proposing to change the quantitative and qualitative information currently collected in their separate, yet identical, report forms to implement a limited number of revisions that would align the new report with recent burden-reducing changes to the FFIEC 031, FFIEC 041, and the Board's FR Y-9C.
The following revisions to the FFIEC 031, FFIEC 041, and FR Y-9C (as applicable) that took effect March 31, 2017, would affect the proposed FFIEC 016:
(1) On the FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041 Schedule RI, Memorandum item 14.a, and on the FR Y-9C Schedule HI, Memorandum item 17(a), “Total other-than-temporary impairment losses,” was removed, but institutions continue to report other-than-temporary impairment losses recognized in earnings on the FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041 Schedule RI, Memorandum item 14, and the FR Y-9C Schedule HI, Memorandum item 17. The agencies propose for the new FFIEC 016 report form and instructions to replace line item 25, “Total other-than-temporary impairment losses,” on each Income Statement scenario schedule with “Other-than-temporary impairment losses on held-to-maturity and available-for-sale debt securities
(2) On the FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041 Schedule RC-E, Part I, Memorandum items 1.c.(1), “Brokered deposits of less than $100,000,” and 1.c.(2), “Brokered deposits of $100,000 through $250,000 and certain brokered retirement deposit accounts,” were combined into a single item, Memorandum item 1.c, “Brokered deposits of $250,000 or less (fully insured brokered deposits).” The agencies propose for the new FFIEC 016 report form and instructions to align its Balance Sheet line items 32 and 33 for retail and wholesale funding calculations, respectively, with the updated FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041 Schedule RC-E, Part I, Memorandum item 1.c, “Brokered deposits of $250,000 or less (fully insured brokered deposits).”
(3) On Schedule RC-M of the FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041, items for the amount of loans covered by FDIC loss-sharing agreements in the following loan categories were removed and combined with existing Schedule RC-M, item 13.a.(5), “All other loans and all leases” covered by such agreements: Item 13.a.(2), “Loans to finance agricultural production and other loans to farmers”; item 13.a.(3), “Commercial and industrial loans”; item 13.a.(4)(a), “Credit cards”; item 13.a.(4)(b), “Automobile loans”; and item 13.a.(4)(c), “Other (includes revolving credit plans other than credit cards, and other consumer loans).” In order to keep the data collection uniform and comparable across types of reporting institutions, the agencies propose for the new FFIEC 016 report form and instructions to discontinue the deduction of loans covered by FDIC loss-sharing agreements from each of the loan categories collected in Balance Sheet line items 1 through 13. In addition, in the proposed new FFIEC 016 report form, existing Balance Sheet line item 14, “Loans covered by FDIC loss-sharing agreements,” will be retained.
In addition, the agencies are proposing to have reporting institutions provide their LEI on the FFIEC 016 report form, if they have one. The LEI is a 20-digit alpha-numeric code that uniquely identifies entities that engage in financial transactions. The recent financial crisis spurred the development of a Global LEI System (GLEIS). Internationally, regulators and market participants have recognized the importance of the LEI as a key improvement in financial data systems. The Group of Twenty (G-20) nations directed the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to lead the coordination of international regulatory work and deliver concrete recommendations on the GLEIS by mid-2012, which in turn were endorsed by the G-20 later that same year. In January 2013, the LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee (ROC), including participation by regulators from around the world, was established to oversee the GLEIS on an interim basis. With the establishment of the full Global LEI Foundation in 2014, the ROC continues to review and develop broad policy standards for LEIs. The OCC, the Board, and the FDIC are all members of the ROC.
The LEI system is designed to facilitate several financial stability objectives, including the provision of higher quality and more accurate financial data. In the United States, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) has recommended that regulators and market participants continue to work together to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of financial data both nationally and globally. In this regard, the FSOC also has recommended that its member agencies promote the use of the LEI in reporting requirements and rulemakings, where appropriate.
With respect to the FFIEC 016, the agencies are proposing to have reporting institutions provide their LEI on the cover page of this new report once it is implemented, if a reporting institution has an LEI. A reporting institution that does not have an LEI would not be required to obtain one for purposes of reporting it on the FFIEC 016.
The uniform FFIEC 016 report would be collected through the application currently used to collect the agencies' separate stress test reporting forms, the Federal Reserve's Reporting Central application. The agencies believe that developing a uniform report under the FFIEC reporting structure will promote uniform standards and reporting across the agencies, which is consistent with the function of the FFIEC.
The proposed FFIEC 016 report form would take effect as of December 31, 2017. The first annual filing deadline for the FFIEC 016 report form would be July 31, 2018.
Public comment is requested on all aspects of this joint notice. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collections of information that are the subject of this notice are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimates of the burden of the information collections as they are proposed to be revised, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide the information.
Comments submitted in response to the joint notice will be shared among the agencies. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice.
For the period beginning October 1, 2017, and ending on December 31, 2017, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bond interest rate is 1.06 per centum per annum.
Comments or inquiries may be mailed to Sam Doak, Reporting Team Leader, Federal Borrowings Branch, Division of Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106-1328. You can download this notice at the following Internet addresses:
Applicable October 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.
Adam Charlton, Manager, Federal Borrowings Branch, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106-1328, (304) 480-5248; Sam Doak, Reporting Team Leader, Federal Borrowings Branch, Division of Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106-1328, (304) 480-5117.
Federal law requires that interest payments on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds shall be “at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, except that in no case shall the interest rate exceed 3 per centum per annum.” 8 U.S.C. 1363(a). Related Federal regulations state that “Interest on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds will be at the rate as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, but in no case will exceed 3 per centum per annum or be less than zero.” 8 CFR 293.2. Treasury has determined that interest on the bonds will vary quarterly and will accrue during each calendar quarter at a rate equal to the lesser of the average of the bond equivalent rates on 91-day Treasury bills auctioned during the preceding calendar quarter, or 3 per centum per annum, but in no case less than zero. [FR Doc. 2015-18545] In addition to this Notice, Treasury posts the current quarterly rate in Table 2b—Interest Rates for Specific Legislation on 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 |