| Page Range | 46893-47081 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 47029 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science Board | |
| 82 FR 47075 - Buy America Waiver Notification | |
| 82 FR 47047 - Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47029 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 46974 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 82 FR 47078 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Time Record (Work Study Program) | |
| 82 FR 46958 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 46929 - Tolfenpyrad; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions | |
| 82 FR 46985 - Tetrachlorvinphos; Notice of Receipt of Request To Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations | |
| 82 FR 46898 - Establishment of Restricted Area R-2603; Fort Carson, CO | |
| 82 FR 46926 - Tall Oil Fatty Acids; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance | |
| 82 FR 46986 - Environmental Modeling Public Meeting; Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 46984 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an Existing Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 47072 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Helicopter Association International | |
| 82 FR 46948 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Pequonnock River, Bridgeport, CT | |
| 82 FR 46969 - Membership of the Performance Review Board | |
| 82 FR 47079 - Veterans' Research and Health Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 46988 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 46970 - Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47045 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47025 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 82 FR 47029 - Omaha Public Power District; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1 | |
| 82 FR 46970 - Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47028 - 189th Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 46997 - Re-designation of the Delivery Area for the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township | |
| 82 FR 47004 - Re-Designation of the Delivery Area for the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation, Formerly Known as Smith River Rancheria | |
| 82 FR 46989 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program. | |
| 82 FR 46988 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 82 FR 47046 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 46991 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 46994 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 46993 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 46996 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 46963 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 46965 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Rescission of New Shipper Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 46961 - Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 47026 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Silicon Integration Initiative, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 46954 - Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Directors | |
| 82 FR 47026 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Open Mobile Alliance | |
| 82 FR 47026 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired: FBI eFOIA Form | |
| 82 FR 46936 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer | |
| 82 FR 47016 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Cargo Manifest/Declaration, Stow Plan, Container Status Messages and Importer Security Filing | |
| 82 FR 47015 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Report of Diversion | |
| 82 FR 47023 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, New Mexico | |
| 82 FR 46954 - Cranberries Grown in States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York; Request for Approval of a New Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 47018 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Administrative Procedures for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Financial Assistance Programs | |
| 82 FR 47021 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines | |
| 82 FR 46982 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 82 FR 46972 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice | |
| 82 FR 46978 - University of Notre Dame; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 82 FR 46981 - Lamarr Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 82 FR 46979 - Notice of Petition for Partial Waiver; Indiana Municipal Power Agency, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission | |
| 82 FR 46982 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 46979 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 46973 - California Public Utilities Commission, Transmission Agency of Northern California, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, M-S-R Public Power Agency, City of Santa Clara, California, State Water Contractors, Modesto Irrigation District, Northern California Power Agency v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Complaint | |
| 82 FR 46983 - Merchant Hydro Developers LLC; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene | |
| 82 FR 46934 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries | |
| 82 FR 47070 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the U.S. Virgin Islands | |
| 82 FR 46991 - Submission for OMB Review; Architect-Engineer Qualifications (Standard Form 330) | |
| 82 FR 47071 - Seventy First RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary | |
| 82 FR 47073 - Ninety Ninth RTCA SC-159 Navigation Equipment Using the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Plenary | |
| 82 FR 47073 - Seventeenth RTCA SC-209 Plenary Session Joint With EUROCAE WG49 | |
| 82 FR 47072 - Thirty First RTCA SC-217 Aeronautical Databases Plenary Joint With EUROCAE WG-44 | |
| 82 FR 47074 - Twelfth RTCA SC-233 Addressing Human Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics Plenary | |
| 82 FR 47070 - The Entire United States and U.S. Territories Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (MREIDL) | |
| 82 FR 47069 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Georgia | |
| 82 FR 47070 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico | |
| 82 FR 47071 - Notice of Public Meeting of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Scientific Advisory Board | |
| 82 FR 46901 - Safety Zone; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Camp Lejeune, NC | |
| 82 FR 46990 - Notice of Termination, 10403-First State Bank, Cranford, New Jersey | |
| 82 FR 46990 - Notice of Termination; 10368-First Heritage Bank, Snohomish, Washington | |
| 82 FR 46937 - Internet Communication Disclaimers; Reopening of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 47054 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 47024 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Federal Inspections and Monitoring | |
| 82 FR 47080 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Supplemental Income Questionnaire (for Philippine Claims Only) | |
| 82 FR 47081 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Application for Exclusion of Children's Income | |
| 82 FR 47080 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Department of Veteran Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Part 813, Simplified Acquisition Procedures | |
| 82 FR 47028 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 47044 - Florida Power and Light Company; Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7 | |
| 82 FR 47078 - VA Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47079 - Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials, Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47072 - Fifth Drone Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47074 - Transport Airplane and Engine Subcommittee; Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47078 - Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 46950 - Periodic Reporting | |
| 82 FR 47011 - Office of the Director; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47013 - Specification for Postal Security Devices and Indicia (Postmarks); Correction | |
| 82 FR 47015 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 47015 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47012 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47012 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47015 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47013 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 46956 - Information Collection; Urban Forest in Atlanta, GA | |
| 82 FR 46957 - Information Collection: Federal and Non-Federal Financial Assistance Instruments | |
| 82 FR 46975 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Nylon Corporation of America | |
| 82 FR 46974 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; York Haven Power Company, LLC | |
| 82 FR 46975 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 46972 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 46980 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 47065 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.9, Orders and Modifiers, To Add New Optional Functionality to Minimum Quantity Orders | |
| 82 FR 47047 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.9, Orders and Modifiers, To Add New Optional Functionality to Minimum Quantity Orders | |
| 82 FR 47063 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Obsolete Text From Options Regulatory Fee Rule | |
| 82 FR 47064 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Obsolete Text From Options Regulatory Fee Rule | |
| 82 FR 47051 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Obsolete Text From Options Regulatory Fee Rule | |
| 82 FR 47055 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Adopt New Corporate Governance and Related Processes Similar to Those of the Nasdaq Exchanges | |
| 82 FR 46956 - Information Collection; Volunteer Application and Agreement for Natural and Cultural Resources Agencies | |
| 82 FR 47076 - Forest River, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
| 82 FR 47075 - Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2010 Lamborghini Murcielago Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation | |
| 82 FR 47047 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 47047 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 47053 - EntrepreneurShares Series Trust, et al. | |
| 82 FR 47020 - Foreign Endangered and Threatened Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit | |
| 82 FR 46900 - Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Adjunctive Cardiovascular Status Indicator; Correction | |
| 82 FR 46960 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Michigan Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 46959 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Review and Discuss a Draft Report Regarding Civil Rights and Voter Participation in the State | |
| 82 FR 46961 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 82 FR 46987 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Clean Water Act Section 404 State-Assumed Programs (Renewal) | |
| 82 FR 46960 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Vermont Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 46968 - Procurement List; Proposed Deletions | |
| 82 FR 46895 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Battle Creek, MI | |
| 82 FR 46915 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; General Burning Rule Revisions | |
| 82 FR 46917 - Interim Final Determination To Defer Sanctions; California; Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin | |
| 82 FR 46951 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 | |
| 82 FR 47032 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
| 82 FR 46919 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; North Dakota; Revisions to Air Pollution Control Rules | |
| 82 FR 46921 - Air Plan Approval; Alabama: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Updates | |
| 82 FR 46903 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans | |
| 82 FR 46897 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Evansville, IN | |
| 82 FR 46893 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Augusta, AR | |
| 82 FR 46894 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Redmond, OR | |
| 82 FR 46940 - Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule | |
| 82 FR 46923 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District | |
| 82 FR 46938 - Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG Gliders | |
| 82 FR 46958 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Louisiana Advisory Committee To Discuss Hearing Preparations for Barriers to Voting Report |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Antitrust Division
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Augusta, AR. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new special Instrument approach procedures developed at Woodruff County Airport, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Woodruff County Airport, Augusta, AR.
On July 21, 2017, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Woodruff County Airport, Augusta, AR, to accommodate new special instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Woodruff County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area at Roberts Field, Redmond, OR, by removing the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status, and modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates for Roberts Field in the associated Class D and E airspace areas are amended to match the FAA's aeronautical database. These changes are necessary to accommodate airspace redesign for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System. Also, an editorial change is made to the Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class D and Class E airspace at Roberts Field, Redmond, OR to accommodate airspace redesign for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.
On June 23, 2017, the FAA published in the
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area at Roberts Field, Redmond, OR, by shortening the segment to within 8.5 miles (from 13.5 miles) of the airport. This action also removes the part-time NOTAM language that reads “This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.”
Additionally, this action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to reduce the area east (to within 9.6 miles, from 11.5 miles) and southeast (to within 13.1
Also, this action updates the geographic coordinates for Roberts Field and replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions. Further, this action makes an editorial edit to the Class D legal description by reinstating the letters “MSL” to signify 5,600 feet mean sea level. This airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 5,600 feet MSL within a 5.1-mile radius of Roberts Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5.1-mile radius of Roberts Field. This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile each side of the 122° bearing of Roberts Field extending from the 5.1-mile radius to 8.5 miles southeast of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.6-mile radius of Roberts Field from the 270° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 195° bearing from the airport, and within a 10.5-mile radius of Roberts Field from the 195° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 270° bearing from the airport, and within 2.6 miles each side of the 085° bearing from Roberts Field extending to 9.6 miles east of the airport, and within 4 miles northeast and 3 miles southwest of the 122° bearing from Roberts Field extending to 13.1 miles southeast of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies the Class D and removes the Class E airspace designated as an extension at W.K. Kellogg Airport (formerly W.K. Kellogg Field), Battle Creek, MI. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Battle Creek collocated VHF omnidirectional range and tactical air navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid, and cancellation of the VOR approaches. The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is also modified due to the redesign of the instrument landing system (ILS) approach, thereby removing reference to the BATOL navigation aid and Battle Creek ILS localizer. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport, and makes an editorial change replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the associated Class D and E airspace areas. This action enhances the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5900.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D and Class E airspace to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at W.K. Kellogg Airport, Battle Creek, MI.
The FAA published in the
Subsequent to publication, the FAA determined the Class E airspace designated as an extension at W.K. Kellogg Airport is no longer required to contain any instrument procedures. Therefore, this rule removes Class E airspace designated as an extension at W.K. Kellogg Airport. This change has no substantive impact on operators using the airspace.
Class D, Class E extension, and Class E transition area airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies the Class D and removes the Class E airspace designated as an extension at W.K. Kellogg Airport (formerly W.K. Kellogg Field), Battle Creek, MI. The airport's geographic coordinates are amended in the associated Class D and Class E airspace listed in this amendment.
Also, the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of W.K. Kellogg Airport is being amended by removing the southwest segment, and the segment 7 miles northwest and 4.4 miles southeast of the Battle Creek ILS localizer northeast course extending 10.4 miles northeast of the localizer outer marker/non directional radio beacon. The northeast segment will be amended to within 2 miles each side of the 047° bearing (from 4 miles each side of the 049° bearing) from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius of the airport to 10 miles northeast (from 10.9 miles) of the airport, and the southeast segment will be amended to within 2 miles each side of the 126° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 7.4 miles (from 11.1 miles) southeast of the airport. Additionally, this action modifies the Class E airspace by removing reference to the BATOL navigation aid and Battle Creek ILS localizer. This action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
Lastly, this action makes minor editorial corrections to the amended Class D and Class E legal descriptions by removing the city listed before the airport name in the second line and replacing the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,500 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of W.K. Kellogg Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of W.K. Kellogg Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 047° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 10 miles northeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 126° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 7.4 miles southeast of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Evansville Regional Airport, Evansville, Indiana. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Evansville non-directional radio beacon (NDB) and cancellation of the NDB approach, and it enhances the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport. The amendment adjusting the coordinates of Evansville Regional Airport in Class C airspace is removed from this rule, and will be forthcoming in a separate rulemaking.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5900.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Evansville Regional Airport, Evansville, IN, to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA published in the
Subsequent to publication, the FAA realized that the proposed amendment to Class C airspace at Evansville Regional Airport was included in this rulemaking in error and is removed.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius (increased from a 6.8 mile radius) of Evansville Regional Airport, Evansville, IN. The segment 4.4-miles wide (2.2 miles from each side of the 001° bearing from the airport) extending from the 6.8-mile radius is modified to a 4-mile wide segment extending from the 7.1-mile radius of the airport to 11.6 miles (increased from 11.2 miles) north of the airport.
The 4.4-mile wide segment (2.2 miles from each side of the 181° bearing from the airport) extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 11.3 miles south of the airport is removed.
The Pocket City VORTAC navigation aid segment is amended to within a 7.1-mile radius (from a 6.8-mile radius) of the airport to the VORTAC. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Evansville NDB and cancellation of the NDB approaches, and enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
The amendment of Class C airspace at Evansville Regional Airport, included in this rule in error, is removed and will be addressed in a separate rulemaking.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius of Evansville Regional Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 001° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.1-mile radius to 11.6 miles north of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the Pocket City VORTAC 060° radial extending from the 7.1-mile radius to the VORTAC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes restricted area R-2603 within the existing Fort Carson, CO, Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS), near Trinidad, CO. The U.S. Army requires additional restricted airspace because the restricted area ranges at Fort Carson are not large enough to meet all training requirements. R-2603 will provide increased ground-to-air, air-to-ground, and air-to-air battle space to increase training capacity and relieve training congestion at Fort Carson.
Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes the restricted area airspace at Fort Carson, CO, to accommodate essential Army training requirements and ensure the safety of aircraft otherwise permitted to overfly the location established for Army training.
The FAA published in the
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. Two comments were received, one from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and one supporting the establishment of the airspace to support military training.
In their response to the NPRM, AOPA raised several substantive issues. AOPA contended the proposed airspace design would have a negative impact on general aviation aircraft highlighting four main areas of concern: Impacts to Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft; impacts to Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft; charting the restricted area; and times of use. Having considered the issues provided by AOPA, the FAA offers the following responses.
AOPA is concerned with two airways (V-81 and V-169) being effected by the establishment of R-2603. The two airways are within the restricted area boundary from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL. AOPA stated general aviation aircraft must routinely operate IFR at lower altitudes to stay out of icing and due to performance limitations and requiring an aircraft to fly several thousand more feet than is currently required, staying above R-2603's ceiling, could impact general aviation's ability to transit these airways when the restricted area is active. Additionally, AOPA is concerned with feeder route for the Perry Stokes Airport (TAD) RNAV (GPS) RWY 21 instrument approach.
The FAA recognizes the impact to general aviation aircraft and has modified the proposal to minimize the impact to allow complete access to V-169. Additionally, should aircraft encounter icing conditions that would require them to descend to altitudes encompassed by the proposed restricted area, Denver ARTCC would coordinate with the Using Agency and those altitudes would be released.
The FAA recognizes the RNAV (GPS) RWY 21 instrument approach into TAD airport from BLOOM initial approach fix would be unusable when the restricted area is activated. However, RADIO initial approach fix is unencumbered by the restricted area less than 10 NMs away. An aircraft can initiate the approach from this fix or be vectored to intercept the radial inbound from RADIO with minimal impact to general aviation aircraft.
AOPA stated pilots flying under VFR routinely follow prominent railroads and highways to get to their destination. US Route 350 and a parallel railroad proceed from TAD to La Junta Municipal Airport (LHX). Following this route would keep a pilot clear of the restricted area; however, the western boundary point is uncomfortably close for many pilots to utilize this route without proceeding unnecessarily north of the road and tracks.
The FAA has determined that only the most northwest point of the proposed restricted area is close to US Route 350. The closest point for this momentary instance is .12 NM from US 350 and .20 NM from the railroad tracks. VFR aircraft flying over either of these reference points would be clear of the proposed restricted area's closest point. Beyond this point, the distance from the proposed restricted area increases rapidly in both directions. Aircraft utilizing these ground reference points would have a clear boundary identifying they are clear of the restricted area. As long as the aircraft remain over the highway or train tracks, the restricted airspace will not be violated.
AOPA requested the activation of the new restricted area should occur concurrently or after the charting of the airspace on the Denver and Wichita Sectional Charts. Additionally, the FAA should make the effective date of restricted area airspace coincide with the sectional chart cycle so that pilots have the latest information and a graphical depiction of the change. Lastly, the instrument approach procedures to airports in proximity to R-2603 should be updated to graphically depict the new restricted area to increase situational awareness for instrument pilots. Similar to the Pinon Canyon Military Operations Area (MOA) being charted on the procedures into LHX, the restricted area and MOA should be added to TAD's approach and departure procedures.
The FAA concurs with AOPA and will make the new restricted area effective in accordance with guidance to chart on a 56-day cycle, which is December 7, 2017. However, the FAA has mandated to the proponent that it will not be utilized until the Wichita and Denver VFR sectionals are updated January 4, 2018. Lastly, the FAA will ensure the approach and departure procedures are updated.
AOPA stated, as part of the Colorado Airspace Initiative, the Pinon Canyon MOA (within which R-2306 will be located) had its boundaries modified in December 1999. The airspace circular for the modification (Air Traffic Division Letter to Airmen No. 98-03; Study No. 98-ANM-001-NR) stated the MOA “would not be scheduled for use between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. local.” The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) states Pinon Canyon MOA's utilization is “low” and that in 2012 had only eight days of activation. AOPA is concerned the proponent's intention may be to activate the existing MOA whenever the restricted area is in use. This issue is not addressed in the FEIS or in the NPRM. The NPRM for the restricted area states, “the area would be required to support approximately five training cycles per year with the longest duration of each cycle being approximately four to five weeks,” AOPA believes the previous statements made in the Letter to Airmen to limit utilization of the MOA may not be honored. AOPA commented that the proponent should continue the overnight embargo on the MOA's utilization and should only activate the MOA when it is explicitly needed to support operations. According to the comment, activating the MOA continuously for five weeks would not be responsible management of the airspace and would have a considerable impact on civil aviation in the area.
The FAA has changed the times of use of Pinon Canyon MOA to “Intermittent by NOTAM 0700 to 2200, daily.” This change ensures the December 1999 amendment is followed as stated in the circular. Additionally, the restricted area time of designation has been amended to “By NOTAM 24 Hours in Advance.”
Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, it was requested by the FAA charting team to change the order of the lat./long. coordinates to a clockwise direction vice a counter clockwise direction for ease of charting. Additionally, in response to a comment from AOPA, the FAA identified a geographic lat./long. coordinate which was relocated to ensure ample separation from airway V-169. The following restricted area update is incorporated in this action.
The geographic lat./long. coordinates are reversed for a clockwise listing of lat./long. coordinates. Additionally, the
The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to establish a new restricted area R-2603 at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, near Trinidad, CO. The FAA is also incorporating the restricted area updates noted in the Differences from the NPRM section. The FAA is taking this action to ensure realistic Army training which provides increased ground-to-air, air-to-ground, and air-to-air battle space to increase training capacity and relieve training congestion at Fort Carson. The changes from what was proposed in the NPRM are as follows:
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of establishing restricted area R-2603 within the existing Fort Carson, CO, Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS), near Trinidad, CO, qualifies for FAA adoption in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraphs 8-2 and 9-2,
Based on the evaluation for potential environmental impact in the Army's EIS, the FAA, as the Cooperating Agency for the Army's proposed action, concluded that adoption of the Army's EIS evaluating the proposed establishment of R-2603 is authorized in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3,
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a final order entitled “Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Adjunctive Cardiovascular Status Indicator” that appeared in the
Effective October 10, 2017.
Nathalie Yarkony, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1254, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
In the
In the
On page 35066, at the bottom of the page below table 1, beginning in the first column, the third paragraph is corrected as follows:
“Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k), if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the adjunctive cardiovascular status indicator they intend to market.”
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina in support of military training exercises. This temporary safety zone is intended to restrict vessel traffic from a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway between Mile Hammock Bay and Onslow Beach Swing Bridge during military training operations. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway to protect mariners, vessels, and training exercise participants from the hazards associated with military training operations. Entry of vessels or persons into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) North Carolina or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from October 10, 2017 through October 30, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, 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 is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. The Coast Guard was notified of the final dates needed for this rule on August 17, 2017. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay this action. Waiting for a comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guards' ability to protect the public and participants from the dangers associated with the military exercises scheduled from October 10 through October 30, 2017.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP North Carolina has determined that potential hazards associated with the military exercises scheduled from October 10 through October 30, 2017, is a safety concern for mariners and participants. The military training exercises involve building temporary bridges, crossing with amphibious vehicles, and other military operations on the ICW. These military training activities will block the waterway in a manner that restricts all vessel navigation and movement within this segment of the ICW. This rule is necessary to protect persons and vessels from the potential hazards associated with the military training exercises.
The safety zone will be enforced on the following dates and times in October 2017:
The safety zone will include all navigable waters of the ICW from Mile Hammock Bay, approximate position 34°32′46″ N., 77°19′17″ W., to Onslow Beach Swing Bridge approximate position 34°34′25″ N., 77°16′14″ W. (NAD 1983), an approximately four mile portion of the ICW. The duration of this zone is intended to protect mariners from the hazards associated with military training operations. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port North Carolina or a designated representative. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will not be allowed to enter or transit a portion of the ICW for up to 10 hours on 12 separate days. The Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners and transmit a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding the safety zone. This portion of the ICW has been determined to be a low traffic area. Vessels needing to transit the area during these times can safely transit offshore using New River Inlet to the south and Browns Inlet to the north. This rule does not allow vessels to request permission to enter the safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While the precise number of small entities impacted is unknown, the ICW has a low number of vessels transiting the area planned for the safety zone during the enforcement period. Although some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting for up to 10 hours on 12 separate days that would prohibit entry into an approximately four mile portion of the ICW for military training exercises. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) With the exception of participants, entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, North Carolina or designated representative(s).
(3) All vessels within this safety zone when this section becomes effective must depart the zone immediately.
(4) The Captain of the Port, North Carolina can be reached through the Coast Guard Sector North Carolina Command Duty Officer, Wilmington, North Carolina at telephone number 910-343-3882.
(5) The Coast Guard and designated security vessels enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a source-specific revision to the Arizona state implementation plan (SIP) that provides an alternative to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for the Coronado Generating Station (“Coronado”), owned and operated by the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP). The EPA has determined that the BART alternative for Coronado would provide greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART, based on the criteria established in the EPA's Regional Haze Rule. In conjunction with this approval, we are withdrawing those portions of the federal implementation plan (FIP) that address BART for Coronado. We are also codifying the removal of those portions of the Arizona SIP that have either been superseded by this approval of the SIP revision for Coronado or by previously-approved revisions to the Arizona SIP.
This rule is effective November 9, 2017.
The EPA has established Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0092 for this action. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX, Air Division, Air Planning Office, (520) 999-7880 or
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
• The initials
• The words
• The word
• The initials
• The initials
• The term
• The initials
• The words
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
On April 27, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve a revision to the Arizona Regional Haze SIP for Coronado (“Coronado SIP Revision”)
The Interim Strategy includes three different operating options, each of which requires a period of seasonal curtailment (
We proposed to approve the Coronado SIP Revision because in our assessment it complied with the relevant requirements of the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule. In particular, we proposed to find that the Coronado BART Alternative would achieve greater reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART at Coronado.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 45-day public comment period. During this period, we received comment letters from Earthjustice (on behalf of the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association),
Earthjustice acknowledged that the EPA did not discuss the CPP in our proposal. However, citing
Earthjustice further asserted that ADEQ should “propose a new BART revision that is based on a valid rationale.” The commenter also noted that SRP could comply with the existing BART determination by shutting down Unit 1 and asserted that “this result would be consistent with other recent decisions across Arizona to shut down coal plants or switch them to gas.”
In reviewing a SIP submittal, however, the EPA's role is to evaluate whether the submittal meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and the EPA's regulations. If these requirements are met, the EPA must approve the submittal.
Furthermore, the State's analyses supporting its determination of greater reasonable progress do not rely on the requirements of the CPP or any uncertainty related to those requirements. While the State included a discussion of the CPP in its proposed SIP revision to explain the proposed compliance schedule for the Coronado BART Alternative,
Finally, while the commenter is correct that SRP could choose to comply with the existing BART determination for Coronado Unit 1 by simply shutting down that unit, this fact has no bearing on the approvability of the Coronado SIP Revision. Likewise, the fact that the owners of units of other coal plants in Arizona have chosen to shut down units or switch them to natural gas is not pertinent to the current action.
If the distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under BART, and the alternative measure results in greater emission reductions, then the alternative measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of emissions is significantly different, the State must conduct dispersion modeling to determine differences in visibility between BART and the trading program for each impacted Class I area, for the worst and best 20 percent of days. The modeling would demonstrate “greater reasonable progress” if both of the following two criteria are met:
(i) Visibility does not decline in any Class I area, and
(ii) There is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average differences between BART and the alternative over all affected Class I areas.
The commenters noted that the EPA has consistently interpreted the term “distribution” under the first test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) (the “emissions-reduction test”) to refer to geographic distribution. Citing to prior EPA rulemaking actions, EDF stated that the “EPA has traditionally applied the modeling test only in cases where `the distribution of emissions is significantly different' between BART and the BART alternative.” Earthjustice further asserted that, “[w]hen deciding which `Better than BART' test applies, the determinative factor is whether the distribution of emissions between the alternative and BART is substantially different.” The commenters also noted that, in our proposal to approve the Coronado BART Alternative, we again interpreted “distribution” to refer to geographic distribution when we proposed to determine that the Final Strategy would not result in a substantially different distribution of emissions from BART. However, the commenters suggested that, by proposing to approve ADEQ's use of the two-prong modeling test, rather than the emissions-reduction test, to evaluate the Interim Strategy, the EPA was
Earthjustice further asserted that the Coronado BART Alternative “fails” the emissions-reduction test, which it characterized as the “correct” test to apply in this instance. Citing the difference in total NO
As an initial matter, we note that under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), a SIP revision establishing a BART alternative must include a determination under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)
If a state does elect to make a demonstration under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), the first test (the emissions-reductions test) provides the option to make a demonstration without the need for dispersion modeling when two conditions are satisfied: (1) “the distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under BART”
None of the examples of prior EPA actions cited by the commenters indicate that the EPA has previously interpreted 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to
In evaluating the Coronado BART Alternative, we have followed our long-standing interpretation of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) that, if the geographic distribution of emissions is the same under the BART alternative and BART, then the emissions distribution is not substantially different. With regard to the Final Strategy, we found that the distribution of emissions would not be substantially different than under BART because all emissions under both scenarios were from Coronado. Furthermore, under the Final Strategy, emissions of each pollutant would be lower than or equal to BART, and the collective emissions from the facility would be lower than BART.
In our proposal, we did not evaluate the Interim Strategy under the emissions-reduction test because ADEQ did not make a demonstration under this test. Therefore, we had no cause to consider whether the two conditions of that test were satisfied. Nonetheless, in response to the commenters' concerns,
We have not considered a total emissions profile that combines emissions of multiple pollutants to determine whether BART or the alternative is “better,” except where every visibility impairing pollutant is reduced by a greater amount under the BART alternative. A comparison of mass emissions from multiple pollutants (such as NO
Accordingly, we do not agree with the commenters that the Coronado BART Alternative “fails” the emissions-reduction test. Rather, we find that the emissions-reduction test is not the appropriate test to evaluate the Interim Strategy of the Coronado BART Alternative, and it was appropriate and reasonable for the State to apply the two-prong modeling test to evaluate the Interim Strategy.
The commenter further argued that the EPA improperly based our 110(
Earthjustice further noted that ADEQ was not choosing between BART and a BART alternative for Coronado in the first instance, but was instead replacing an existing BART determination that had been fully litigated and in place for four and a half years. They argued that, under these circumstances, section 110(
Finally, the commenter made several points related to the EPA's approval of a SIP revision that established a new BART determination for Cholla Generating Station (“Cholla BART Reassessment”). Noting certain similarities between the Coronado BART Alternative and the Cholla BART Reassessment, the commenter argued that the EPA had improperly “applied a completely different rationale and analysis when determining whether the two BART revisions complied with section 110(
Section 110(
Prior to the time when the control strategy SIP revisions are due, to demonstrate no [interference] with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the Clean Air Act under section 110(
Thus, in the circumstances presented in that case, we found that, rather than submit a new attainment demonstration, the state could instead substitute one measure for another with equivalent or greater emissions reductions/air quality benefit in order to demonstrate noninterference with attainment, maintenance, and reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements. However, the EPA has never indicated that such a substitution approach is required in all cases. In some cases, states can provide an air quality analysis, typically based on modeling, showing that removing a particular control measure will not interfere with attainment, maintenance, or RFP requirements.
The cases cited by the commenter also fail to support the commenter's interpretation. In
A fourth case cited by the commenter,
Two additional cases cited by the commenter concerned regional haze SIP actions, but do not support the commenter's contention that “after EPA approves a BART determination (or other regional haze requirement), the agency cannot later modify the BART determination in a manner that weakens it.”
In this instance, the critical statutory requirement is that the applicable implementation plan “contain such emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal” of preventing any future and remedying any existing visibility impairment in Class I areas due to manmade air pollution.
Furthermore, even if such a separate evaluation were necessary, we believe that the modeling performed to support ADEQ's demonstration of greater reasonable progress for the Interim Strategy is adequate to demonstrate non-interference with the Act's visibility protection provisions.
The commenters' statements regarding the Cholla BART Reassessment are out of the scope of today's action. That action was a separate analysis based on the facts and circumstances of that SIP revision, which we finalized on March 17, 2017. We also do not agree with the commenter that we improperly applied a different rationale and analysis when determining whether the Coronado BART Alternative and the Cholla BART Reassessment complied with section 110(
Finally, while we do not agree that our responses to comments concerning the Cholla BART Reassessment were mistaken, those responses are not at issue in this action. To the extent that the commenter's concerns are relevant to the Coronado SIP Revision, we have addressed them above.
EDF acknowledged that the EPA's modeling guidance allows the use of a single year of meteorological data for modeling of regional scale pollutants using CAMx. However, the commenters noted that the CAMx modeling for the Coronado BART Alternative focused on a single source's impacts on very specific geographic locations that “would have large variations due to yearly meteorological changes in wind transport patterns.” Earthjustice stated that most BART determinations and all BART alternatives that it was aware of relied on CALPUFF modeling. EDF and Earthjustice also noted that, where the EPA had previously used CAMx modeling for BART determinations, it was in conjunction with CALPUFF modeling, which typically uses at least a three-year meteorological database.
Regional Haze—Choose time periods which reflect the variety of meteorological conditions which represent visibility impairment on the 20% best and 20% worst days in the Class I areas being modeled (high and low concentrations necessary). This is best accomplished by modeling a full year.
Thus, modeling a full year with a photochemical model to represent visibility impairment on the 20% best and worst days is consistent with EPA guidance.
We also note that states and the EPA rarely, if ever, model more than a single year with a photochemical model even for NAAQS attainment demonstrations covering large urban areas with thousands of sources possibly subject to emission controls. A key reason for the practice and recommendation of modeling just a single year is the time and expense involved in running the computationally-intensive computer model and in preparing meteorological and emissions inputs. The emission inventory requires economic variables and population estimates for the whole area covered in the model domain, as well as the emissions calculations for the many sources of pollution in the domain. Meteorological and other model input parameters typically must be adjusted in an iterative process to ensure the model performs adequately. The model's performance must then be evaluated. All of these tasks must be done separately for each year. Thus, while modeling longer periods may improve the robustness of the modeling results, it also requires significant additional time and resources. Therefore, it is prudent to assess whether the benefits of the modeling justify the additional effort for each individual application. Given that the modeling for the Coronado SIP Revision affects only a single source for a limited period of time (
We note that the situation was different for the CALPUFF modeling that states and the EPA conducted for BART determinations, for which the EPA recommended that at least three years of meteorological data be used.
Regarding the specific year chosen for modeling the Interim Strategy, as discussed in connection with SRP's comments and the analysis submitted by Ramboll Environ,
The underlying purpose of both prongs of the test is to assess whether visibility conditions at Class I areas would be better
In other words, the projected conditions at the time the BART alternative will be implemented, including emissions from all other sources, but assuming that no emission reductions from BART or the BART alternative have yet occurred, are an appropriate background for modeling under the two-prong test. Here, the Interim Strategy will be implemented between 2018 and 2025, so ADEQ's decision to use the 2020 emissions inventory as the background conditions for comparing the Interim Strategy to BART was reasonable.
We also do not believe that it is necessary to conduct CALPUFF modeling to support the conclusion that the Coronado BART Alternative would result in greater reasonable progress than BART. While ADEQ could have elected to conduct CALPUFF modeling to make a demonstration of greater reasonable progress, it instead chose to use CAMx modeling to make this demonstration. As explained in our proposal:
CAMx has a scientifically current treatment of chemistry to simulate the transformation of emissions into visibility-impairing particles of species such as ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, and is often employed in large-scale modeling when many sources of pollution and/or long transport distances are involved. Photochemical grid models like CAMx include all emissions sources and have realistic representations of formation, transport, and removal processes of the particulate matter that causes visibility degradation.
Because it incorporates the many emissions sources that create the background conditions at the time the BART alternative will be implemented, CAMx is well suited for modeling under the two-prong test.
• Proposed approval of ADEQ's demonstration under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) that the Coronado BART Alternative Interim Strategy will achieve greater reasonable progress than BART at Coronado;
• proposed approval of the CAMx modeling used by ADEQ;
• determination that the Coronado BART Alternative Final Strategy will result in greater emission reductions than BART for Coronado; and
• determination that the Final Strategy and its associated emission reductions are not necessary to demonstrate that the Coronado BART Alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress than BART during the period of the first long-term strategy.
ADEQ demonstrated that SO
The first of three Ramboll Environ analyses of the representativeness of 2008 was a comparison of 2008 temperatures and precipitation to typical conditions based on more than 100 years of meteorological data. The memorandum noted that temperature affects the oxidizing potential of the atmosphere, which in turn affects the conversion of SO
In a second analysis, Ramboll Environ examined visibility-impairing ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate concentrations during 2000-2012 as measured at four Class I areas in different compass directions from Coronado. These are shown as time series bar or line graphs for the various pollutants and areas. Ramboll Environ found that the annual averages for 2008 were near the middle of the averages for the individual years from 2000-2012. Monthly averages for 2008 were also consistent with the overall range seen from 2000-2012. Compared to other years, monthly sulfate averages for 2008 tended to be on the high side during March, April, and September, and on the low side in mid-summer and in December through February, but nevertheless consistent with the overall range seen for 2000-2012. Ramboll Environ concluded that, because the curtailment periods for Interim Strategy options IS3 and IS4
In its third analysis, Ramboll Environ examined the monthly distribution of the 20% worst visibility days to see how many fell within the November 21-January 20 curtailment period for 2008 in comparison to 2000-2012. This analysis showed that 2008 had a lower than average number of 20% worst visibility days within this period. Ramboll Environ concluded that,
Ramboll Environ's analysis of the approximately 60-day curtailment period used in Interim Strategy options IS3 and IS4 relied on post-processing of modeling results to assess extending the period by 20, 40, 60, and 80 days. Ramboll Environ presented bar graphs showing the amount by which extending the curtailment period impacted the strengths of the directional results of the two-prong test. For prong 1, the visibility benefit of the Interim Strategy increased very little as the curtailment period was extended. For prong 2, Ramboll Environ stated that even doubling the curtailment period would yield only a 0.002 deciview improvement over the proposed period, which Ramboll Environ viewed as small. Therefore, SRP concluded that extending the curtailment period would have only a small visibility benefit.
We acknowledge the analysis of extending the curtailment period, but we note that this analysis is not necessary to demonstrate that the Interim Strategy would result in greater reasonable progress than BART. It is sufficient that the modeling demonstrates that each of the Interim Strategy options passes the two-prong test.
For the reasons explained in our proposal and in our responses to comments in this document, we have determined that the Coronado SIP Revision will provide for greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART. We have also determined that the Coronado SIP Revision meets all other requirements of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations. Therefore, we are approving the Coronado SIP Revision into the Arizona SIP. Because this approval fills the gap in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP left by the EPA's prior partial disapproval with respect to Coronado, we are withdrawing those portions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that address BART for Coronado. Additionally, we are taking final action to remove those portions of the Arizona SIP that have either been superseded by previously-approved revisions to the Arizona SIP or are being superseded by this final approval of the Coronado SIP revision.
As explained above, the Coronado SIP Revision will result in reduced emissions of both SO
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the state permit provisions described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule applies to only a single facility and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action approving revisions to a State Implementation Plan and removing the applicable Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze applies to only a single facility and is therefore is a
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule applies to only a single facility. Therefore, its recordkeeping and reporting provisions do not constitute a “collection of information” as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c).
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Firms primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale are small if, including affiliates, the total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. The owner of facility affected by this rule, SRP, exceeds this threshold.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on any 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. The EPA is not revising any technical standards or imposing any new technical standards in this action.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in section V above.
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the EPA has determined that this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d). Section 307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to certain rulemaking actions under the CAA. Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the withdrawal of the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to Coronado is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it constitutes a revision to a FIP under CAA section 110(c). Furthermore, CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.” The EPA determines that the provisions of 307(d) apply to the EPA's action on the Coronado SIP Revision.
This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular applicability. The EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability that only applies to a single named facility.
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), 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 rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on January 28, 2013, and July 8, 2015. The submittals request SIP revisions to the State's General Burning rule; a repeal and reenactment of the General Burning rule with changes to applicability, timing and duration of burning windows, and an amendment to exempt Native American ceremonial burning during restricted burning days.
This rule is effective on November 9, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0617. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Chris Dresser, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6385,
In our notice of proposed rulemaking published on July 13, 2017 (82 FR 32282), the EPA proposed to approve Utah's January 28, 2013 SIP submission, which repeals and reenacts the General Burning provisions in R307-202 with several amendments (discussed in the proposed rulemaking). Additionally, the EPA proposed approval of Utah's July 8, 2015 revisions, which exempts ceremonial burning conducted by a “Native American spiritual advisor” during restricted burn days. In this rulemaking, we are taking final action on both SIP submittals. The reasons for our approval are provided in detail in the proposed rule.
We received no comments on the proposed rule.
For the reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is approving revisions to Sections in R307-202 of the State's General Burning provisions from the January 28, 2013 and July 8, 2015 submittals.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Utah General Burning provisions described in the amendments set forth to 40 CFR part 52 below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this final action merely approves some state law as meeting federal requirements; this final action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this final action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 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 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, Feb. 16, 1994).
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 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 CAA section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Interim final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making an interim final determination to defer the imposition of offset and highway sanctions in the Los Angeles-South Coast air basin (“South Coast”) based on a proposed approval of revisions to the South Coast portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) published elsewhere in this
This interim final determination is effective on October 10, 2017. However, comments will be accepted until November 9, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204 at
Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4192,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On April 14, 2016 (80 FR 22025), we published a final action to partially approve and partially disapprove SIP revisions submitted by California to address CAA Moderate area attainment plan requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM
On March 17, 2017, the State of California submitted, as a revision to the California SIP, amendments to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD or “District”) Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program, which consists of SCAQMD rules 2000 to 2020 and applies to stationary sources that emit at least four tons per year of nitrogen oxides or sulfur oxides in the South Coast. Additionally, on May 22, 2017, CARB submitted the SCAQMD's public draft version of the “Supplemental RACM/RACT Analysis for the 2006 24-Hour PM
In the Proposed Rules section of today's
The EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our assessment described in this interim final determination and the proposed full approval of the RACM/RACT and RFP demonstrations in the 2012 PM
We are making an interim final determination to defer the imposition of CAA section 179 sanctions associated with our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM
Because the EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has corrected the deficiencies previously identified in the EPA's partial disapproval action, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible. Therefore, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for comment before this action takes effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, by this action the EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the EPA's determination after the effective date, and the EPA will consider any comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.
The EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The EPA has reviewed the State's revised RECLAIM rules and 2017 RACT Supplement and, through a separate action, is proposing to find that the State has corrected the deficiencies that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to impose sanctions when the State has most likely taken appropriate action to correct the deficiencies that triggered the sanctions clocks. Moreover, it would be impracticable to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding that the State has corrected the deficiencies prior to the rulemaking approving the State's actual submission addressing those deficiencies. Therefore, the EPA believes that it is necessary to use the interim final rulemaking process to defer sanctions while the EPA completes its rulemaking process on the approvability of the State's submission addressing the deficiencies. Moreover, with respect to the effective date of this action, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day notice requirement of the APA because the purpose of this action is to relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).
This action defers federal sanctions and imposes no additional requirements. 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which 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, Ammonia,
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of North Dakota on January 28, 2013, and April 22, 2014. The revisions are to Article 33-15 Air Pollution Control rules of the North Dakota Administrative Code. The revisions include amendments to add EPA Reference Method 22 to determine compliance with a visible emissions limit, add significance levels for PM
This rule is effective on November 9, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0019. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252,
In our notice of proposed rulemaking published on July 28, 2017 (82 FR 35153), the EPA proposed to approve revisions to Article 33-15 Air Pollution Control rules of the North Dakota Administrative Code submitted by the State of North Dakota on January 28, 2013, and April 22, 2014. In this rulemaking, we are taking final action on a revision submitted in the January 28, 2013 submittal to revise significance levels. The North Dakota State Health Council adopted those amendments on August 14, 2012 (effective January 1, 2013). In addition, we are also taking final action on a revision that was included in the April 22, 2014 submittal to add EPA Reference Method 22 for determining opacity for limits expressed as zero percent opacity. The North Dakota State Health Council adopted those amendments on February 11, 2014 (effective April 1, 2014). The reasons for our approval are provided in detail in the proposed rule.
We received no comments on our proposed rule.
For the reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is approving revisions to sections of the State's Air Pollution Control rules from the January 28, 2013, and April 22, 2014 submittals. A summary of the revisions in North Dakota's Air Pollution Control rules the EPA is approving is provided in Table 1.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of North Dakota Air Pollution Control rules described in the amendments set forth to 40 CFR part 52 below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this final action merely approves some state law as meeting federal requirements; this final action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this final action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 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 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, Feb. 16, 1994).
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 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 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
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve portions of revisions to Alabama's State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), on May 8, 2013, and August 23, 2016. The portions of these SIP revisions that EPA is finalizing approval of relate to the State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
This rule is effective November 9, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0360. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Andres Febres of the 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. Mr. Febres can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-8966 or via electronic mail at
On May 8, 2013 and August 23, 2016, ADEM submitted SIP revisions for EPA's approval that include changes to Alabama's PSD permitting regulations, among other changes. In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on August 15, 2017 (82 FR 38660), EPA proposed to approve certain portions of these submittals that make changes to ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335-3-14-.04—“Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Areas (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD)),” which applies to the construction or modification of any major stationary source in areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable as required by part C of title I of the CAA.
Alabama's May 8, 2013, SIP submittal includes changes to Rule 335-3-14-.04 to address the Federal rule entitled “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM
Alabama's August 23, 2016, SIP submittal includes changes to Rule 335-3-14-.04 and Rule Chapter 335-3-16 to remove the treatment of GHGs as an air pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a source is a major source (or a modification thereof) in PSD and title V permitting requirements.
In the August 15, 2017, proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve only the portions of the May 8, 2013, submittal that make changes to the GHG PAL provisions pursuant to the GHG Step 3 rule and the portions of the August 23, 2016, submittal that discontinue regulation of GHGs as an air pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a source is a major source (or a modification thereof) in PSD and title V permitting requirements and that make changes to the GHG Step 3 language proposed in Alabama's May 8, 2013, submittal. EPA did not propose any action on the remaining portions of these submittals. The details of Alabama's SIP revisions and the
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 335-3-14-.04(1)(k), 335-3-14-.04(2)(a)(ii), and 335-3-14-.04(b)4, state effective on November 25, 2014. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
EPA is finalizing approval of portions of Alabama's May 8, 2013, and August 23, 2016, SIP submittals that revise the PSD permitting program at Rule 335-3-14-.04—“Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Areas (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD))” by removing language regulating GHG-only sources and by adding language to the PAL provisions.
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 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.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42.U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve and conditionally approve revisions to the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD or “District”) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern the District's demonstration regarding Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or “standards”) in the Antelope Valley ozone nonattainment area. The EPA is also taking final action to approve AVAQMD negative declarations into the SIP for the 1997 and the 2008 ozone standards.
We are approving local SIP revisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
This rule will be effective on November 9, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0524. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On July 28, 2017 (82 FR 35149), the EPA proposed action on the following documents submitted into the California SIP.
Specifically, the EPA proposed to conditionally approve AVAQMD's 2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs with respect to Rule 462,
We proposed to approve these submittals because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the submittals and our evaluation.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.
No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in subsections 110(k)(3) and 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA is conditionally approving AVAQMD's 2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs with respect to Rule 462,
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 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.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(358) * * *
(ii)
(
(
(493) The following plan was submitted by on October 23, 2015 by the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii)
(
(
(494) The following plan revision was submitted on June 7, 2017 by the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii)
(
(
(a) * * *
(6) * * *
(x) The following negative declarations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS were adopted by the District on July 21, 2015 and submitted to EPA on October 23, 2015.
(xi) The following negative declarations were adopted by the District on December 20, 2016 and submitted to EPA on June 7, 2017.
(a) The EPA is conditionally approving a California State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted on November 13, 2015 updating the motor vehicle emissions budgets for nitrogen oxides (NO
(b) The EPA is conditionally approving portions of the California SIP revisions submitted on January 31, 2007 and October 23, 2015, demonstrating control measures in the Antelope Valley portion of the Los Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert) nonattainment area implement RACT for the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards. The conditional approval is based on a commitment from the state to submit new or revised rules that will correct deficiencies in the following rules for the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District:
(1) Rule 462,
(2) Rule 1110.2,
(3) Rule 1151,
(4) Rule 1171,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of tall oil fatty acids (CAS Reg. No. 61790-12-3) when used as inert ingredients (solvent/carrier) in the following circumstances: In pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest; in pesticides applied in/on animals, and in antimicrobial formulations for food contact surfaces. Spring Trading Company on behalf of Ingevity Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of these exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish maximum permissible levels for residues of tall oil fatty acids that are consistent with the conditions of these exemptions.
This regulation is effective October 10, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 11, 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-2017-0012, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), 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 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-2017-0012 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 11, 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-2017-0012, 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
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for 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(c)(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. . . .”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A) and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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 tall oil fatty acids including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with tall oil fatty acids follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their 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. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused
The acute oral toxicity is low in rats for tall oil fatty acids; the lethal dose (LD
Tall oil fatty acids do not exhibit toxicity when administered via the diet to rats at 2,500 mg/kg/day for 90 days.
A two-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats was available for tall oil fatty acids. Fetal susceptibility was not observed. Neither maternal nor developmental adverse effects were observed following oral administration of tall oil fatty acids at doses as high as 5,000 mg/kg/day.
Carcinogenicity studies with tall oil fatty acids are not available; however, there is no toxicological endpoint of concern up to 5,000 mg/kg/day nor is there a potential for mutagenicity. Therefore, tall oil fatty acids are not expected to be carcinogenic.
Mutagenicity studies, the Ames test and mammalian gene mutations, are negative for tall fatty acids. Therefore, tall oil fatty acids are not mutagenic.
Neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity studies are not available for review; however, evidence of neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity is not observed in the submitted studies.
The available toxicity studies indicate that tall oil fatty acids have a very low overall toxicity. The NOAELs in a 90-day oral and a reproduction toxicity studies were
1.
Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to tall oil fatty acids can occur following ingestion of foods with residues from treated crops, animals or food contact surfaces. Use on food crops may result in residues in drinking water.
2.
Tall oil fatty acids may be used in pesticide products and non-pesticide products that may be used in and around the home. Based on the discussion above, a quantitative residential exposure assessment for tall oil fatty acids was not conducted.
3.
Based on the available data, tall oil fatty acids do not have a toxic mechanism; therefore, section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) does not apply.
1.
As part of its qualitative assessment, the Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children. Based on an assessment of tall oil fatty acids, EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children.
Because no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, EPA concludes that aggregate exposure to residues of tall oil fatty acids will not pose a risk to the U.S. population, including infants and children, and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to tall oil fatty acids residues.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance are established under for residues of tall oil fatty acids (CAS Reg. No. 61790-12-3) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent/carrier) in pesticide formulations as follows: For application to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910; for application to animals under 40 CFR 180.930; and for use in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to for food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils under 40 CFR 180.940(a).
This action establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemptions 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) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for residues of tolfenpyrad in or on dry bulb onion and watermelon. This action is in response to EPA's granting of emergency exemptions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide on dry bulb onion and watermelon. This regulation establishes maximum permissible levels for residues of tolfenpyrad in or on these commodities. The time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.
This regulation is effective October 10, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 11, 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-2017-0309, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 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-2017-0309 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 11, 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-2017-0309, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6) of, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is establishing time-limited tolerances for residues of tolfenpyrad (4-chloro-3-ethyl-1-methyl-
Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative,
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. . . .”
Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that “emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.” EPA has established regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.
The Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) stated that an emergency situation required the use of tolfenpyrad on dry bulb onions (
Separately, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDA) stated that an emergency developed due to outbreaks of melon thrips in watermelon fields at unusually high levels, (up to 200 thrips per leaf), which registered pesticides were not controlling. HDA stated that above-average rainfall caused rapid growth of host plants, leading to development of very high levels of melon thrips in areas near watermelon fields. Subsequently, a 6-week drought caused early dry-down of this rainy-season vegetation, prompting massive migrations of melon thrips into neighboring watermelon fields. HDA stated that the melon thrips infestations have caused stunted vines, foliage discoloration, and in some instances have caused such severe damage that the plants no longer produce fruit. The melon aphid also transmits the tomato spotted wilt virus, which causes silver mottle disease in watermelon, further damaging the plants and causing additional yield losses. HDA stated that some watermelon acreage was abandoned due to the high level of damage from melon thrips infestations, and that significant yield and economic losses would occur in the remaining watermelon acreage without the requested use of tolfenpyrad. Upon EPA concurrence, HDA allowed the use of tolfenpyrad under the provisions of a crisis exemption, beginning on May 31, 2017, subsequently requesting a specific exemption to allow the use of tolfenpyrad in watermelon to continue beyond the 15 days provided under a crisis exemption alone.
After having reviewed the submissions, EPA determined that emergency conditions exist for these States, and that the criteria for approval of the emergency exemptions had been met. Therefore, EPA authorized specific exemptions under FIFRA section 18 for the use of tolfenpyrad on dry bulb onion for control of onion thrips in Texas, and on watermelon for control of melon thrips in Hawaii.
As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption applications, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of tolfenpyrad in or on dry bulb onion and watermelon. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and decided that the necessary tolerances under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemptions in order to address urgent, non-routine situations and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing these tolerances without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Although these time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2020, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerances remaining in or on dry bulb onion or watermelon after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by these time-limited tolerances at the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke these time-limited tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.
Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether tolfenpyrad meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on dry bulb onion and watermelon or whether permanent tolerances for these uses would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that these time-limited tolerance decisions serve as bases for registration of tolfenpyrad by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c), nor do these tolerances by themselves serve as the authority for persons in any States other than Texas and Hawaii to use this pesticide on the applicable crops under FIFRA section 18, absent the issuance of an emergency exemption applicable within that State. For additional information regarding the emergency exemptions for tolfenpyrad, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under
Consistent with 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 expected as a result of these emergency exemptions and the time-limited tolerances for residues of tolfenpyrad on dry bulb onion at 0.09 ppm, and watermelon at 0.7 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the time-limited tolerances follows.
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed to humans by exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological profile and endpoints for tolfenpyrad used for human health risk assessment is discussed in Table 1 of the final rule published in the
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of tolfenpyrad are 26.9 ppb for acute exposure and 12.2 ppb for chronic exposure. These modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
3.
Tolfenpyrad is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at:
4.
EPA has not found tolfenpyrad to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and tolfenpyrad does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that tolfenpyrad does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for tolfenpyrad is complete.
ii. There is no indication that tolfenpyrad is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. Although there is possibly increased qualitative susceptibility in the young in the DIT study in rats, there are no residual uncertainties regarding increased susceptibility for tolfenpyrad since, (1) comparable maternal toxicity was observed at the same dose in the
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to tolfenpyrad in drinking water. Accordingly, these assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by tolfenpyrad.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
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 MRLs for tolfenpyrad residues in dry bulb onion or watermelon.
Therefore, time-limited tolerances are established for residues of tolfenpyrad (4-chloro-3-ethyl-1-methyl-
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6). 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 in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances 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.
(b)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure of the General category fishery.
NMFS closes the General category fishery for large medium and giant (
Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, October 5 through November 30, 2017.
Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
NMFS is required, under § 635.28(a)(1), to file a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota (or subquota) is reached or is projected to be reached. On and after the effective date and time of such notification, for the remainder of the fishing year or for a specified period as indicated in the notification, retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited until the opening of the subsequent quota period or until such date as specified in the notice.
The base quota for the General category is 466.7 mt. See § 635.27(a). Each of the General category time periods (January, June through August, September, October through November, and December) is allocated a “subquota” or portion of the annual General category quota. Although it is called the “January” subquota, the regulations allow the General category fishery under this quota to continue until the subquota is reached or March 31, whichever comes first. The subquotas for each time period are as follows: 24.7 mt for January; 233.3 mt for June through August; 123.7 mt for September; 60.7 mt for October through November; and 24.3 mt for December. Any unused General category quota rolls forward within the fishing year, which coincides with the calendar year, from one time period to the next, and is available for use in subsequent time periods. On December 19, 2016, NMFS published an inseason action transferring 16.3 mt of BFT quota from the December 2017 subquota to the January 2017 subquota period, resulting in a subquota of 41 mt for the January 2017 period and a subquota of 8 mt for the December 2017 period (81 FR 91873). For 2017, NMFS also transferred 40 mt from the Reserve to the General category effective March 2, and 156.4 mt from the Reserve to the General category effective September 28, resulting in an adjusted General category quota of 663.1 mt (82 FR 12747, March 7, 2017; 82 FR 46000, October 3, 2017). This transfer restored quota to the October through November and December subquota categories that otherwise would have been used to compensate for overharvests in earlier subquota periods, with the goal of making the subquota categories whole to the extent transferrable quota was available.
Based on the best available landings information for the General category BFT fishery as well as recent and anticipated catch rates and fishing conditions, NMFS has determined that the General category October through November subquota will be reached by October 5, 2017. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant BFT by persons aboard vessels permitted in the Atlantic tunas General and HMS Charter/Headboat categories must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on October 5, 2017. The General category will reopen automatically on December 1, 2017, for the December 2017 subperiod. This action applies to Atlantic tunas General category (commercial) permitted vessels and Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels, and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1). The intent of this closure is to prevent overharvest of the available General category October through November BFT subquota and help ensure reasonable fishing opportunities in the December subquota time period.
Fishermen may catch and release (or tag and release) BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs at § 635.26. All BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize their survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available at
NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustment, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. General and Charter/Headboat category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead, within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:
The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. These fisheries are currently underway and the quota for the subcategory is projected to be reached shortly. Delaying this action would be contrary to the public interest because the subquota is projected to be reached shortly and any delay could lead to further exceedance, which may result in the need to reduce quota for the General category later in the year and thus could affect later fishing opportunities. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there also is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
This action is being taken under 50 CFR 635.28(a)(1) (BFT Fishery Closures), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of New Jersey is transferring a portion of its 2017 commercial summer flounder quota to the State of Rhode Island. This quota adjustment is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised commercial quotas for New Jersey and Rhode Island.
Effective October 4, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9180.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102, and the initial 2017 allocations were published on December 22, 2016 (81 FR 93842).
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan, as published in the
New Jersey is transferring 380 lb (172 kg) of summer flounder commercial quota to Rhode Island. This transfer was requested to repay landings by a New Jersey-permitted vessel that landed in Rhode Island under a safe harbor agreement.
The revised summer flounder quotas for calendar year 2017 are now: New Jersey, 946,132 lb (429,158 kg); and Rhode Island, 887,922 lb (402,755 kg); based on the initial quotas published in the 2017 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Specifications and subsequent transfers.
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Election Commission.
Reopening of comment period.
On October 13, 2011, the Federal Election Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) seeking comment on whether to begin a rulemaking to revise its regulations concerning disclaimers on certain internet communications and, if so, on what changes should be made to those rules. On October 18, 2016, the Commission reopened the comment period to receive additional comments in light of legal and technological developments since that document was published. The Commission has decided to again reopen the comment period to receive additional comments in light of developments since that document was published. The Commission is not seeking comment on, nor does it propose changes to, any other rules adopted by the Commission in the Internet Communications rulemaking of 2006.
The comment period for the ANPRM published October 13, 2011 (76 FR 63567) is reopened. Comments must be received on or before November 9, 2017.
All comments must be in writing. Commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically via the Commission's Web site at
Each commenter must provide, at a minimum, his or her first name, last name, city, state, and zip code. All properly submitted comments, including attachments, will become part of the public record, and the Commission will make comments available for public viewing on the Commission's Web site and in the Commission's Public Records Office. Accordingly, commenters should not provide in their comments any information that they do not wish to make public, such as a home street address, personal email address, date of birth, phone number, social security number, driver's license number, or any information that is restricted from disclosure, such as trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential.
Mr. Neven F. Stipanovic, Acting Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Jessica Selinkoff, Attorney, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.
On October 13, 2011, the Commission published in the
As discussed in the ANPRM, a “disclaimer” is a statement that must appear on certain communications to identify who paid for it and, where applicable, whether the communication was authorized by a candidate. 52 U.S.C. 30120(a); 11 CFR 110.11. With some exceptions, the Act and Commission regulations require disclaimers for public communications: (1) made by a political committee; (2) that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate; or (3) that solicit a contribution. U.S.C. 30120(a); 11 CFR 110.11(a). While the term “public communication” generally does not include internet communications, it does include “communications placed for a fee on another person's Web site.” 11 CFR 100.26.
Commission regulations set forth certain exceptions to the general disclaimer requirements. For example, disclaimers are not required for communications placed on “[b]umper stickers, pins, buttons, pens, and similar small items upon which the disclaimer cannot be conveniently printed.” 11 CFR 110.11(f)(1)(i) (the “small items exception”). Nor are disclaimers required for “[s]kywriting, water towers, wearing apparel, or other means of displaying an advertisement of such a nature that the inclusion of a disclaimer would be impracticable.” 11 CFR 110.11(f)(1)(ii) (the “impracticable exception”).
As discussed in the ANPRM, some internet advertisements are so character-limited that providing all the disclaimer information required by the Act may take up much of the available ad characters.
After publication of the ANPRM, the Commission considered these issues in new factual contexts.
In light of these and other legal and technological developments, the Commission reopened the comment period on October 18, 2016, seeking comments addressing persons' experiences in complying with (and receiving disclosure from) these state rules as well as other disclosure regimes.
• How campaigns, parties, and other political committees, voters, and others disseminate and receive electoral information via the internet and other technologies, including any data or experiences in purchasing, selling, or distributing small or character-limited advertisements on Web sites, apps, and mobile devices;
• any challenges in complying with the existing disclaimer rules as applied to internet communications;
• the technological or other characteristics that might define a “small” internet advertisement;
• how a disclaimer requirement or exception for “small” internet advertisements might be implemented;
• the informational benefits of disclaimers on internet communications to assist voters in identifying the source of advertising so they are better “able to evaluate the arguments to which they are being subjected”;
• the informational benefits of disclaimers on internet communications, including Web sites and social media pages, to avoid voter confusion and reduce the incidence of solicitations that appear to be for candidates but are actually for non-candidate committees; and
• the extent to which the Commission's consideration of disclaimer requirements should take into account current or anticipated models of internet advertising.
The Commission received six comments during the reopened comment period, all but one of which supported updating the disclaimer rules. Commenters, however, differed on whether the Commission should adopt technological modifications to disclaimer requirements for all online advertisements or exempt paid advertisements on social media platforms from the disclaimer requirements.
Since the close of the latest comment period, the Commission has again considered disclaimer requirements as applied to online communications by American citizens.
On behalf of the Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-10-11 for Stemme AG Model Stemme S10-VT gliders (type certificate previously held by Stemme GmbH & Co. KG). This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as certain propeller front transmission gear wheels having insufficient material strength because of improper heat treatment during manufacturing. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products and to add Stemme AG Model Stemme S 12 to the applicability.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 24, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact STEMME AG, Flugplatzstrasse F2, Nr. 6-7, D-15344 Strausberg, Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 3341 3612-0, fax: +49 (0) 3341 3612-30; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2017-10-11, Amendment 39-18885 (82 FR 24239, May 26, 2017) (“AD 2017-10-11”) to address an unsafe condition on all Stemme AG Model Stemme S10-VT gliders (type certificate previously held by Stemme GmbH & Co. KG) equipped with a certain front gearbox, part number 11AG, and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.
Since we issued AD 2017-10-11, we have type certificated Stemme AG Model Stemme S 12 gliders in the United States and have determined those model gliders should also be included in the applicability of AD 2017-10-11. In addition, Stemme AG has issued new service information with procedures for addressing the unsafe condition.
Stemme AG has issued STEMME Service Bulletin Dok. Nr.: P062-980010, Issue: 01, dated June 14, 2017, and STEMME Procedural Specification Dok. Nr.: P320-900060, dated June 14, 2017. In combination, the service information describes procedures for replacing the front gearbox. 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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The service information for this proposed AD allows the owner/operator to do certain maintenance tasks. Also, the service information specifies certain maintenance tasks be done by Stemme AG. However, for this proposed AD, we do not allow the owner/operator to do any maintenance tasks; all maintenance tasks must be done by an appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop. In addition, we do not require any maintenance tasks be done specifically by Stemme AG; any appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop may do the tasks required by this proposed AD.
According to the U.S. registry, we have a total of 51 of both glider types registered, but there are still only 14 serial numbers of the part number 11AG front gearbox. Therefore, the most gliders that could be affected remains 14. According to Stemme AG, there are a total of 4 of the affected front gearboxes on both glider types of U.S. registry (2 for each model).
It will take an estimated 19 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,000 per product.
Based on these figures, if we consider the costs for all 14 affected gearboxes, then we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $50,610, or $3,615 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, and domestic business jet transport airplanes to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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 24, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2017-10-11, Amendment 39-18885 (82 FR 24239, May 26, 2017) (“AD 2017-10-11”).
This AD applies to Stemme AG Model Stemme S10-VT gliders (type certificate previously held by Stemme GmbH & Co. KG), all serial numbers, and Stemme AG Model Stemme S 12 gliders, all serial numbers, that are:
(1) Equipped with a front gearbox, part number (P/N) 11AG, with a serial number listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD; and
(2) are certificated in any category.
Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD—Affected P/N 11AG (front gearbox) S/Ns
Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: Page 2 of Stemme AG Service Bulletin No. P062-980010, dated April 21, 2017, provides a pictorial of where the serial number of the affected gearboxes are located.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 61: Propellers/Propulsors.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as certain propeller front transmission gear wheels having insufficient material strength because of improper heat treatment during manufacturing. We are issuing this proposed AD to add Stemme AG Model Stemme S 12 to the applicability, paragraph (c), of this AD, and to prevent failure of the propeller front transmission gear wheels. This failure could cause loss of power between the engine and the propeller, which could result in reduced control.
Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)
(2)
(3) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a front gear box listed in table 1 of paragraph (c) of this AD.
(4) The service information for this AD allows the owner/operator to do certain maintenance tasks. Also, the service information specifies certain maintenance tasks be done by Stemme AG. However, for this AD, we do not allow the owner/operator to do any maintenance tasks; all maintenance tasks must be done by an appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop. In addition, we do not require any maintenance tasks be done specifically by Stemme AG; any appropriately certified mechanic or maintenance shop may do the tasks required by this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(ii) AMOCs approved for AD 2017-10-11, Amendment 39-18885 (82 FR 24239, May 26, 2017) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0072-E, dated April 26, 2017, and Stemme AG Service Bulletin No. P062-980010, dated April 21, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Pursuant to the Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Act), the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) is proposing a rule for final action by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC). The Secretary is proposing the Commission exercise its authority under the Federal Power Act (FPA) to establish just and reasonable rates for wholesale electricity sales. Under the proposal, the Commission will impose rules on Commission-approved independent system operators
The Commission is directed either to take final action by December 11, 2017 or to issue the proposed rule as an interim final rule. Public comment is due either November 24, 2017 or according to a schedule to be published by the Commission.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
•
•
Ronald (R.J.) Colwell, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Electricity and Fossil Energy (GC-76), Forrestal Building, Room 6D-033, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-9507; email
Section 403 of the DOE Act authorizes the Secretary of Energy to propose rules for Commission action regarding certain Commission functions, including its electricity rate-related functions under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act, and to set reasonable time limits for Commission completion of the proposed action. Section 403(a) provides for the initiation of rulemaking proceedings by either the Secretary or the Commission. In the exercise of this authority, the Commission proposes rules by publishing Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in the
Independent of the Secretary's action under section 403(a), FERC has full authority to establish the rule set forth in this proposed rule. Specifically, FERC has authority to establish just and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions for wholesale electricity sales under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act, and FERC has discretion to do so by means of a rulemaking pursuant to section 403(c), which authorizes FERC to use rulemaking procedures to conduct its Federal Power Act functions relating to rates and charges.
Furthermore, section 403(b) requires that FERC “shall consider and take final action on any proposal made by the Secretary [under subsection (a)] in an expeditious manner in accordance with such reasonable time limits as may be set by the Secretary for the completion of action by the Commission on any such proposal.” The Secretary is therefore authorized to direct the Commission to consider and take final action within the reasonable time limits the Secretary establishes in this proposed rule. Given the extensive record the Commission has already developed on the subject matter of this proposed rule, the time limit for final action provided herein allows adequate time for the Commission to receive and consider public comments.
The resiliency of the nation's electric grid is threatened by the premature retirements of power plants that can withstand major fuel supply disruptions caused by natural or man-made disasters and, in those critical times, continue to provide electric energy, capacity, and essential grid reliability services. These fuel-secure resources are indispensable for the reliability and resiliency of our electric grid—and therefore indispensable for our economic and national security. It is time for the Commission to issue rules to protect the American people from energy outages expected to result from the loss of this fuel-secure generation capacity.
Ensuring that American families and businesses have access to reliable, resilient and affordable electricity is vital to the economy, national security, and quality of life. From heating homes in the winter to cooling them in the summer, providing lighted streets so
The sheer size and impact of the electricity market on our economy cannot be overstated. According to the Department of Energy's January 2017
Market changes are resulting in a significant loss of fuel-secure generation. According to the January 2017 QER: Currently, the changing electricity sector is causing the closure of many coal and nuclear plants in a shift from recent trends. From 2000 through 2009, power plant retirements were dominated by natural gas steam turbines. Over the past 6 years (2010-2015), power plant retirements were dominated by coal plants (37 GW), which accounted for over 52 percent of recently retired power plant capacity. Over the next 5 years (between 2016 and 2020), 34.4 GW of summer capacity is planned to be retired, and 79 percent of this planned retirement capacity are coal and natural gas plants (49 percent and 30 percent, respectively). The next largest set of planned retirements are nuclear plants (15 percent).
The “Staff Report to the Secretary on Electricity Markets and Reliability” (“DOE Staff Report”)
• Between 2002 and 2016, 531 coal generating units representing approximately 59,000 MW of generation capacity retired from the U.S. generation fleet.
• EIA reported that coal-fired power plants made up more than 80 percent of the 18,000 MW of electric generating capacity that retired in 2015.
• It is anticipated that approximately 12,700 MW of coal generation will retire through 2020.
• Between 2002 and 2016, 4,666 MW of nuclear generating capacity was announced for retirement, or approximately 4.7 percent of the U.S. total.
• Eight reactors representing 7,167 MW of nuclear capacity (7.2 percent of U.S. nuclear capacity and 0.6 percent of total U.S. generating capacity) have announced retirement plans since 2016. This does not include seven reactors that averted early retirement through state action.
In early 2014, the Polar Vortex (a band of very cold weather spread across much of the eastern and central United States) created record-high winter peak electric demand for heating and equally high demand for natural gas for residential heating. During the Polar Vortex, PJM Interconnection (PJM)
Likewise, the DOE Staff Report notes that, overall, nuclear generators performed extremely well during the Polar Vortex, with an average capacity factor of 95 percent.
Sixty-five million people within the PJM footprint could have been affected if these units were not available. The 2014 Polar Vortex was a warning that the current and scheduled retirements of fuel-secure plants could threaten the reliability and resiliency of the electric grid.
There is a growing recognition that organized markets do not necessarily pay generators for all the attributes that they provide to the grid, including resiliency. Because wholesale pricing in those markets does not adequately consider or accurately value those benefits, fuel-secure generation resources are often not compensated for those benefits.
The January 2017 QER summarizes the problem of how regulated wholesale markets are not adequately pricing resiliency attributes of fuel-secure generation: Reliability investments are typically incorporated into ratemaking processes for all electric utilities. Supplementary investments for recovery from outage events also are handled through established ratemaking processes. Resilience requirements tend to be valued as contributions to reliability and incorporated as part of ratemaking processes. These processes are more easily executed in structures that are traditional end-to-end, vertically integrated electricity delivery services; other market structures complicate reliability and resilience investment decision-making.
A recent study by IHS Markit amplifies the same point: “the increasing cost of ensuring power system resilience is exposing the problem that some current wholesale market price formation rules do not fully compensate generating resources for providing the desired power system supply resiliency.”
The IHS Markit study also concludes that preservation of generation diversity provided by fuel-secure resources benefits consumers: “The current diversified US electric supply portfolio lowers the cost of electricity production by about $114 billion per year and lowers the average retail price of electricity by 27%” compared with a “less efficient diversity case” involving “no meaningful contributions from coal or nuclear resources.”
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) (the FERC-designated Electric Reliability Organization), whose mission is to assure the reliability and security of the bulk power system in North America, states: The North American electric power system is undergoing a rapid and significant transformation with ongoing retirements of fossil-fired and nuclear capacity, as well as growth in natural gas, wind, and solar resources. This shift is caused by several drivers, such as federal, state, and provincial policies, low natural gas prices, electricity market forces, and integration of both distributed and utility-scale renewable resources.
Specifically, according to NERC, “Coal-fired and nuclear generation have the added benefits of high availability rate, low forced outages, and secured on-site fuel. Many months of on-site fuel allow these units to be operated in a manner independent of supply chain disruptions.”
As a consequence, NERC warns, “Premature retirements of fuel secure baseload generating stations reduces resilience to fuel supply disruptions.”
The DOE Staff Report confirms these observations and exposes the potential challenges and threats to the reliability and resiliency of the electric grid, as well as the economic hardship faced by some of the most resilient types of generation. Among other things, the DOE Staff Report warns that premature retirements of fuel-secure resources impose serious risks: Ultimately, the continued closure of traditional baseload power plants calls for a comprehensive strategy for long-term reliability and resilience. States and regions are accepting
The DOE Staff Report also recognizes that “system fuel supply chain disruptions can impact many generators during a single widespread fuel shortage event,” and that “[n]uclear and coal plants typically have advantages associated with onsite fuel storage[.]”
The DOE Staff Report's first recommendation for protecting the resiliency of the electric grid is to correct distortions in price formation in the organized markets: FERC should expedite its efforts with states, RTO/ISOs, and other stakeholders to improve energy price formation in centrally-organized wholesale electricity markets. After several years of fact finding and technical conferences, the record now supports energy price formation reform, such as the proposals laid out by PJM and others.
In July 2015, the chairmen of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, sent correspondence to the Commission about challenges in the Commission-approved organized electricity markets.
More specifically, the Chairmen's letter stated: “There are growing indications that owners and operators of major baseload power plants are facing imminent decisions regarding their continued economic viability”
Over the past several years, the Commission has developed an extensive record on price formation in the Commission-approved ISOs and RTOs. The Commission has recognized that there are deficiencies in the way the regulated wholesale power markets price power (
Beginning in June 2013, the Commission recognized the changing mix of generation resources, determined that existing capacity markets were not providing a sufficiently reliable supply of electricity, predicted the loss of fuel-secure generation, and sought input from the public through proceedings on price formation in the organized markets. In a 2013 technical conference, FERC explained: The purpose of the technical conference is to consider how current centralized capacity market rules and structures are supporting the procurement and retention of resources necessary to meet future reliability and operational needs. Since their establishment, centralized capacity markets have continued to evolve. Meanwhile, the mix of resources is also evolving in response to changing market conditions, including low natural gas prices, state and federal policies encouraging the entry of renewable resources and other specific technologies, and the retirement of aging generation resources. This changing resource mix may result in future reliability and operational needs that are different than those of the past.
In December 2014, PJM requested that the Commission issue an order approving PJM's revisions to its capacity market rules to require resources participating in the capacity market to honor contractual commitments to deliver electricity at any time of the year.
A year after its initial 2013 proceeding, the Commission initiated a proceeding in June 2014, entitled “Price Formation in Energy and Ancillary Services Markets in Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators” (Price Formation Proceeding) to evaluate issues regarding price formation in the energy and ancillary services markets operated by RTOs and ISOs.
The Price Formation Proceeding resulted in a number of additional proceedings and rulemakings, some of which are described below:
• In November 2016, under Order No. 825,
• In November 2016, pursuant to a NOPR entitled
• In December 2016, under Order 831,
• In December 2016, pursuant to a NOPR entitled
• In January 2017, the Commission issued a NOPR entitled
(1) Maximize market surplus for consumers and suppliers;
(2) Provide correct incentives for market participants to follow commitment and dispatch instructions, make efficient investments in facilities and equipment, and maintain reliability;
(3) Provide transparency so that market participants understand how prices reflect the actual marginal cost of serving load and the operational constraints of reliably operating the system; and
(4) Ensure that all suppliers have an opportunity to recover their costs.
Through these proceedings, the Commission has developed an extensive record on price formation in the Commission approved ISOs and RTOs. Nevertheless, the fundamental challenge of maintaining a resilient electric grid has not been sufficiently addressed by the Commission or the ISOs and RTOs. The continued loss of fuel-secure generation must be stopped. These generation resources are necessary to maintain the resiliency of the electric grid. FERC must adopt rules requiring the Commission-approved ISOs and RTOs to reduce the chronic distortion of the markets that is threatening the resilience of the Nation's electricity system.
In light of these threats to grid reliability and resilience, it is the Commission's immediate responsibility to take action to ensure that the reliability and resiliency attributes of generation with on-site fuel supplies are fully valued and in particular to exercise its authority to develop new market rules that will achieve this urgent objective.
The recent Polar Vortex, as well as the devastation from Superstorm Sandy and Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, reinforces the urgency that the Commission must act now. Moreover, the Commission should take action before the winter heating season begins so as to prevent the potential failure of the grid from the loss of fuel-secure generation—as almost happened during the 2014 Polar Vortex.
As outlined, the Commission has developed a vast record of comments, hearings, and technical conferences on price formation matters, but has not done enough to address the crisis at hand. Immediate action is necessary to ensure fair compensation in order to stop the imminent loss of generators with on-site fuel supplies, and thereby preserve the benefits of generation diversity and avoid the severe consequences that additional shut-downs would have on the electric grid.
Over the past few years, the Commission has been considering various aspects of accurate price formation within Commission-approved organized markets in its ongoing price formation docket. Throughout these proceedings the Commission has declared that a key goal of price formation is to “ensure that all suppliers have an opportunity to recover their costs.”
Pursuant to the Secretary's authority under section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7173), the Secretary is directing the Commission to exercise its authority under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act to issue a final rule requiring its organized markets to develop and implement market rules that accurately price generation resources necessary to maintain the reliability and resiliency of our Nation's bulk power system.
The proposed rule allows for the recovery of costs of fuel-secure generation units frequently relied upon to make our grid reliable and resilient. Such resources provide reliable capacity, resilient generation, frequency and voltage support, on-site fuel inventory—in addition to providing power for our basic needs, quality of life, and robust economy. The rule allows the full recovery of costs of certain eligible units physically located within the Commission-approved organized markets. Eligible units must also be able to provide essential energy and ancillary reliability services and have a 90-day fuel supply on site in the event of supply disruptions caused by emergencies, extreme weather, or natural or man-made disasters. These resources must be compliant with all applicable environmental regulations and are not subject to cost-of-service rate regulation by any State or local authority. The rule requires the organized markets to establish just and reasonable rate tariffs for the recovery of costs and a fair rate of return.
Pursuant to section 403(b) of the DOE Act, the Secretary is requiring the Commission to consider and take final action on the proposed rule herein within 60 days from the date of the publication of this NOPR in the
To ensure that the Commission completes final action on this proposed rule within the deadline provided, it will be necessary to provide for the solicitation and review of public comments prior to the Commission's final action. To facilitate such comment process, the Commission is invited to issue a notice providing for such process within two business days of the publication of this proposed rule in the
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this NOPR to be adopted. Comments are due November 24, 2017. Comments must refer to Commission Docket No. RM18-1-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
It is encouraged that comments be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to
The Secretary further proposes that any final rule issued by the Commission pursuant to this NOPR shall provide that each Commission-approved RTO and ISO shall submit a compliance filing, including a revised tariff pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, within 15 days of the effective date of the final rule to demonstrate that it meets the proposed requirements set forth in any Final Rule. This compliance deadline is for each RTO and ISO to submit proposed tariff changes or otherwise demonstrate compliance with any Final Rule. Implementing the reforms required by any Final Rule in this proceeding may be a complex endeavor. However, implementation of these reforms is important to ensure rates remain just and reasonable. Therefore, it is proposed that tariff changes filed in response to a Final Rule in this proceeding must become effective no more than 15 days after compliance filings are due.
To the extent that any RTO or ISO believes that it already complies with the reforms proposed in this NOPR, the RTO or ISO would be required to demonstrate how it complies in the compliance filing required 15 days after the effective date of any Final Rule in this proceeding. To the extent that any RTO or ISO seeks to argue on compliance that its existing market rules are consistent with or superior to the reforms adopted in any Final Rule, the Commission has the ability entertain such arguments at that time.
Section 403(a) of the DOE Act authorizes the Secretary of Energy to propose rules with respect to any function within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Section 403(b) of that Act provides that the Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such proposals. Accordingly, although the proposal is that of the Secretary of Energy, the Commission is the agency which will take final action on this proposed rulemaking. Therefore, the Commission is the appropriate agency to comply with the statutory, regulatory or Executive Order requirements which arise in connection with this rulemaking. To the extent a statute, regulation, or Executive Order requires action before the issuance of a final rule, the Commission should take such action in sufficient time to permit adoption of a final rule within the deadline for final action set forth above.
To the extent that a NOPR—in the event the Commission were to issue one—would include certain information, included below are the following:
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
Similar to other recently issued rules in its price formation docket, the reforms proposed in this NOPR would amend the Commission's regulations to improve the operation of organized wholesale electric power markets operated by RTOs and ISOs. The reforms proposed in this NOPR would require each RTO and ISO to implement market rules that meet certain requirements for pricing resiliency resources. The reforms proposed in this NOPR would require one-time filings of tariffs with the Commission and potential software upgrades to implement the reforms proposed in this NOPR. DOE anticipates the reforms proposed in this NOPR, once implemented, would not significantly change currently existing burdens on an ongoing basis. With regard to those RTOs and ISOs that believe that they already comply with the reforms proposed in this NOPR, they could demonstrate their compliance in the compliance filing required 15 days after the effective date of any Final Rule in this proceeding. The Commission will submit the proposed reporting requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
While the DOE expects the adoption of the reforms proposed in this NOPR to provide significant benefits, the DOE understands implementation can be a complex endeavor. Comments are sought on the accuracy of provided burden and cost estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondents' burdens, including the use of automated information techniques. Specifically, detailed comments are sought on the potential cost and time necessary to implement aspects of the reforms proposed in this NOPR, including (1) hardware, software, and business processes changes; and (2) processes for RTOs/ISOs to vet proposed changes amongst their stakeholders.
Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Attention: Office of the Executive Director, email:
Though the Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
The SBA classifies an entity as an electric utility if it is primarily engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric energy for sale. Under this definition, the six RTOs/ISOs are considered electric utilities, specifically focused on electric bulk power and control. The size criterion for a small electric utility is 500 or fewer employees.
This proposed rule has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action for purposes of
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
83. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
The Secretary of Energy has approved the publication of this proposed rule.
Electric power rates, electric utilities, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes that FERC amend part 35, chapter I of title 18, subchapter B, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 791a-825r; 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
(g) * * *
(10)
(i)
(A) Is an electric generation resource physically located within a Commission-approved independent system operator or regional transmission organization;
(B) Is able to provide essential energy and ancillary reliability services, including but not limited to voltage support, frequency services, operating reserves, and reactive power;
(C) Has a 90-day fuel supply on site enabling it to operate during an emergency, extreme weather conditions, or a natural or man-made disaster;
(D) Is compliant with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws, rules, and regulations; and
(E) Is not subject to cost of service rate regulation by any state or local regulatory authority.
(ii)
(iii)
(
(
(B) The just and reasonable rate shall include pricing to ensure that each eligible resource is fully compensated for the benefits and services it provides to grid operations, including reliability, resiliency and on-site fuel-assurance, and that each eligible resource recovers its fully allocated costs and a fair return on equity.
(iv)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the Metro-North Peck Bridge across the Pequonnock River, mile 0.3, at Bridgeport, Connecticut. The owner of the bridge, Metro-North Railroad, has submitted a request that vessels seeking an opening of the draw submit a minimum of four hours of advance notice. It is expected this change to the regulations will better serve the needs of the public, particularly commuters and commercial interests utilizing the Northeast Corridor rail spur, while continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 9, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0750 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. James Moore, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone 212-514-4334, email
The Metro-North Peck Bridge, mile 0.3, across the Pequonnock River at Bridgeport, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance of 26 feet at Mean High Water and 32 feet at Mean Low Water when
The existing drawbridge regulation in 33 CFR 117.219(b) has been in effect since September 13, 2010. The owner of the bridge, Metro-North Railroad, requested a change to the drawbridge operating regulations in order to better facilitate the orderly flow of rail traffic while still satisfying the reasonable needs of navigation. Specifically, Metro-North Railroad seeks to modify the “open on signal” requirement associated with the existing regulation. Under the proposed rule, mariners would be expected to provide a minimum four hours advance notice if an opening is necessary. Additionally, the bridge owner requested to extend the allowable delay to an opening when a train is approaching the bridge. The bridge is a component of the Northeast Corridor, which supports Metro-North, Amtrak and freight rail service. Of note, the bridge has not received any requests for an opening in the past four years; meanwhile, approximately 211 Metro-North commuter trains alone proceed across the bridge daily. It is reasoned that rail traffic will be able to proceed in a more expeditious and predictable manner if the draw of the bridge is not required to open on signal.
Bridge logs submitted for review by Metro North Railroad substantiate the bulk of bridge openings since 2015 have been undertaken for no more than test purposes. Over the course of the past decade the Pequonnock River has seen a marked decrease in the volume of commercial vessel traffic utilizing the waterway. There are presently no businesses located upstream of the bridge hosting either vessels and/or barges that would require an opening of the draw as a routine matter. Nor does it appear likely that planned development of the City of Bridgeport's waterfront will involve ventures requiring moorings for commercial vessels. Based on this evidence as well as discussion with the bridge owner, the Coast Guard proposes to permanently change the drawbridge operating regulation 33 CFR 117.219(b).
The proposed rule at 33 CFR 117.219(b) would allow the Metro-North Peck Bridge to open in the following manner: “The draw of the Metro-North Peck Bridge at mile 0.3, at Bridgeport, shall operate as follows: The draw shall open on signal between 5:45 a.m. to 9 p.m. if at least four hours advance notice is given; except that, from 5:45 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic unless an emergency exists. From 9 p.m. to 5:45 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least an eight hour notice is given. A delay in opening the draw not to exceed 15 minutes may occur when a train scheduled to cross the bridge without stopping has entered the drawbridge block. Requests for bridge openings may be made by calling the telephone number posted at the bridge.”
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
The Coast Guard believes this rule is not a significant regulatory action. Mariners have not requested an opening of the draw for passage of a vessel within the past four years. Revision of the present regulation will allow for more efficient and economical operation of the span while still serving the reasonable needs of navigation based on present waterway usage trends. The minimum 26 feet of vertical clearance at mean high water when the bridge is in the closed position is sufficient to allow vessels utilizing the Pequonnock River to safety and expeditiously pass through the draw without opening.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For the reasons states and Sections III and IV above, this proposed rule will not pose a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this proposed rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(b) The draw of the Metro-North Peck Bridge at mile 0.3, at Bridgeport, shall operate as follows:
(1) The draw shall open on signal between 5:45 a.m. to 9 p.m. if at least four hours advance notice is given; except that, from 5:45 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic unless an emergency exists.
(2) From 9 p.m. to 5:45 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least an eight hour notice is given.
(3) A delay in opening the draw not to exceed 15 minutes may occur when a train scheduled to cross the bridge without stopping has entered the drawbridge block.
(4) Requests for bridge openings may be made by calling the telephone number posted at the bridge.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is noticing a recent filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to an analytical method for use in periodic reporting (Proposal Nine). This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On September 29, 2017, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports and compliance
Currently, the Postal Service collects CCCS mail characteristics data manually.
The Postal Service discusses the likely effects of the proposed methodology change on product volume distribution and unit costs.
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2017-13 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2017-13 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Nine), filed September 29, 2017.
2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than November 21, 2017.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve California's Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology and Reasonable Further Progress demonstrations for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM
Any comments must arrive by November 9, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204 at
Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4192,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised the 24-hour NAAQS for PM
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, section 107(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (“South Coast”) as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM
On February 13, 2013 and March 4, 2015, California submitted SIP revisions to address planning requirements for the 2006 PM
Our April 14, 2016 partial disapproval of the 2012 PM
On March 17, 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a series of amendments to the SCAQMD's NOX RECLAIM program. The submittal was intended to strengthen the program and correct the deficiencies identified in both the EPA's partial disapproval of the 2012 PM
We are proposing to determine that the RECLAIM program amendments submitted by CARB on March 17, 2017, and the 2017 RACT Supplement submitted by CARB on May 22, 2017, together correct the deficiency in the RACM/RACT element of the 2012 PM
In addition, we are proposing to determine that these SIP submissions correct the RFP deficiency that we identified in our partial disapproval of the Plan. Our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM
If finalized as proposed, these determinations will permanently stop the sanctions clocks triggered by our April 14, 2016 partial disapproval of the 2012 PM
We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments are provided in the
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 proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, 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, Ammonia, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
United States African Development Foundation.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) will hold its quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss the agency's programs and administration.
The meeting date is Monday, October 30, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The meeting will take place via teleconference, with staff congregating at USADF, 1400 I St. Northwest, Suite #1000, (Executive Conference Room), Washington, DC 20005-2246.
Marie-Cécile Groelsema, 202-233-8883.
Public Law 96-533 (22 U.S.C. 290h).
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Agency's intent to request emergency approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection for cranberry handlers, where applicable, to provide prior affirmative consent authorizing five forms needed to implement and facilitate compliance with a handler withhold volume regulation for the 2017-18 season under the marketing order for cranberries grown in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York.
Comments must be received by December 11, 2017. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection burden that would result from this notice must be received by December 11, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this notice by using the electronic process available at
Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
On August 31, 2017, the Cranberry Marketing Committee (Committee) recommended establishing a handler withhold volume regulation for the 2017-18 season in response to historically high inventory levels for cranberries. Following the recommendation for the handler withhold, the Committee developed the forms necessary to effectively carry out the handler withhold. Given that the industry has begun harvesting the 2017-18 crop, these forms need to be effective immediately.
On September 15, 2017, the Committee unanimously recommended that cranberry handlers covered under the order provide the Committee with a report indicating the anticipated total quantity of cranberries acquired by the handler, the amount withheld from handling, and the disposition of such
The Committee also recommended that handlers covered under the order submit a report certifying whenever a disposal of withheld cranberries is made. This report will contain information regarding the volume, the form of disposed cranberries, and information on the container type. This form, titled “Handler Disposal Certification,” will be submitted directly to the Committee by handlers following each disposal activity. This information collection provides the Committee with data regarding the amount of cranberries diverted and the information needed to help track handler compliance with the recommended handler withhold.
The Committee also recommended that handlers provide the Committee with a record of withheld cranberries disposed of in non-commercial outlets. This form, titled “Handler Application for Outlets for Withheld Fruit,” will be submitted directly to the Committee by handlers to provide information regarding the type, form, and volume of cranberries disposed of in noncompetitive outlets. Handlers will submit this form prior to each disposal activity of this type to provide the Committee with the opportunity to review and approve the requested outlet. This information collection provides the Committee with information on the noncompetitive outlets used to meet the requirements for withheld cranberries, and is necessary for the Committee to track compliance with the recommended handler withhold.
The Committee also recommended that handlers submit a report confirming the third-party receipt of withheld fruit. This form, titled “Third-Party Confirmation of Receipt of Withheld Fruit,” will include certification by outlets receiving withheld cranberries for use in a noncompetitive outlet. This form needs to be filed after each shipment of withheld fruit received by noncompetitive outlets, such as charities. This report contains information on the type, form, and volume of withheld fruit received. This reporting requirement helps track the disposition of withheld cranberries and facilitates compliance with the recommended handler withhold.
The Committee also recommended establishing a form for handlers to use to appeal any denial of a request made for disposing of cranberries in a noncompetitive outlet. This form, titled “Handler Withholding Appeal,” will need to be submitted by the handler making the appeal within 30 days of the denial. This form will include information on why the handler is making the appeal and what additional information is being provided.
The order authorizes the Committee to collect certain information as required. The information collected will only be used by authorized representatives of the USDA, including the AMS Specialty Crops Program regional and headquarters staff, and authorized employees of the Committee. All proprietary information will be kept confidential in accordance with the Act and the order.
The Committee developed these forms to effectively carry out a handler withhold volume regulation for the 2017-18 season. The purpose of these forms will be to ensure compliance with the recommended handler withhold.
Upon OMB approval of the new forms and the information collection package, AMS will request OMB approval to merge the new forms and this information collection in the currently approved information collection OMB control number 0581-0189, Fruit Crops.
The new information collection under the order is as follows:
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the extension with revision of a currently approved information collection entitled, Volunteer Application for Natural Resources Agencies.
Comments must be received in writing on or before December 11, 2017 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Merlene Mazyck, Volunteers & Service, Forest Service, USDA, 201 14th St. SW., Washington, DC 20250-1125. Comments also may be submitted via email to:
The public may inspect comments received at Forest Service, USDA, 201 14th St. SW., Washington, DC during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 202-205-0650 to facilitate entry to the building.
Merlene Mazyck, Volunteers & Service, 202-205-0650. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard time, Monday through Friday.
The volunteer programs of the following natural resource agencies are included:
Applicants provide name, address, telephone number, age, preferred work categories, available dates, preferred location, indication of physical limitations, and lodging preferences. Information collected using this form assists agency volunteer coordinators and other personnel in matching volunteers with agency opportunities appropriate for an applicant's skills and physical condition and availability. Signature of a parent or guardian is mandatory for applicants under 18 years of age.
Comment is invited:
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Comments must be received in writing on or before December 11, 2017 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Cassandra Johnson Gaither, Forestry Sciences Lab, 320 Green St., Athens, GA 30602. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to (706) 559-4266 or by email to:
The public may inspect comments received at Forestry Sciences Lab, 320 Green St., Athens, GA 30602 during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to (706) 559-4264 to facilitate entry to the building.
Cassandra Johnson Gaither, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 706-559-4270. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.
This information collection addresses environmental justice from the perspective of urban trees and how this resource may contribute to environmental justice in a given community or neighborhood.
The survey will be conducted face-to-face at the household using electronic devices. Neighborhood residents trained in appropriate data collection techniques will collect the information. Data on city of Atlanta residents' interest in and engagement with city trees will be collected. This includes information about engagement at both the household and community level. For instance, at the household level, questions are asked about the ability and knowledge that people may have about city trees. And at the community level, questions are asked about a community's political strength and how this may affect that community's ability to command tree planting by the city.
Data will be collected from residents in the city of Atlanta. If the information proposed herein is not collected, efforts to understand how urban dwellers in large, southern cities like Atlanta are connected to urban green spaces will be diminished.
Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the revision of a currently approved information collection, OMB 0596-0217, Federal and Non-Federal Financial Assistance Instruments.
Comments must be received in writing on or before December 11, 2017 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Jacqueline Henry, USDA Forest Service, Branch Chief for Grants and Agreements Policy, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mailstop 1138, Washington, DC 20250.
Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 703-605-4776 or by email to:
The public may inspect comments received at USDA Forest Service, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250, during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 703-605-4776 to facilitate entry to the building.
Jacqueline Henry, Branch Chief, Grants and Agreements Policy, telephone 703-605-4776.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including holidays.
(1) Federal Financial Assistance Standard Forms,
(2) Pre-certification forms,
(3) Award and administrative related correspondence, and
(4) A new questionnaire related to a recipient's accounting system and financial management capabilities.
In addition to FFA, Congress created specific authorizations for acts outside the scope of the FGCAA. Appropriations language was developed to convey authority for the Forest Service to enter into relationships that are outside the scope of the FGCAA. The Forest Service implements these authorizations using instruments such as collection agreements, FGCAA exempted agreements, memorandums of understanding, and other agreements which mutually benefit participating parties. These instruments fall outside the scope of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and often require financial plans and statements of work. Forest Service employees collect information from cooperating parties from the pre-award to the closeout stage via telephone calls, emails, postal mail, and person-to-person meetings to create, develop, and administer these funded and non-funded agreements. The multiple means for respondents to communicate their responses include forms, non-forms, electronic documents, face-to-face, telephone, and Internet. The scope of information collected varies; however, it typically includes the project type, project scope, financial plan, statement of work, and cooperator's business information.
The Forest Service would not be able to create, develop, and administer these funded and non-funded agreements without the collected information. The Agency would also be unable to develop or monitor projects, make or receive payments, or identify financial and accounting errors.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.
October 16, 2017, 1:00 p.m. e.d.t.
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20006.
Open to the public.
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) will convene a public meeting on October 16, 2017, starting at 1:00 p.m. EDT in Washington, DC, at the CSB offices located at 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 910. The Board will discuss open investigations, an update on recommendations, the status of audits from the Office of the Inspector General, and financial and organizational updates. An opportunity for public comment will be provided.
The meeting is free and open to the public. If you require a translator or interpreter, please notify the individual listed below as the
A conference call line will be provided for those who cannot attend in person. Please use the following dial-in number to join the conference: Dial in Number: 888-862-6557 Confirmation Number: 45765401.
The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating accidents and hazards that result, or may result, in the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The agency's Board Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents and hazards, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.
The time provided for public statements will depend upon the number of people who wish to speak. Speakers should assume that their presentations will be limited to three minutes or less, but commenters may submit written statements for the record.
Hillary Cohen, Communications Manager, at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 10, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. Central.
David Barreras, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-208-1815, conference ID: 9544831. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to David Barreras at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Illinois Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST for the purpose of reviewing and discussing a draft report regarding civil rights and voting in the state.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST, Public Call Information: Dial: 800-474-8920, Conference ID: 6700535.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the call in information listed above. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement to the Committee as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Michigan Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, October 20, 2017, at 1 p.m. EST for the purpose of discussing civil rights concerns in the state.
The meeting will be held on Friday, October 20, 2017, at 1 p.m. EST, Public Call Information: Dial: 888-430-8678, Conference ID: 8364198.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-430-8678, conference ID: 8364198. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting.
An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Vermont Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 11:00 a.m. (EDT) on: Friday, October 27, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is for planning future projects and discuss draft housing report.
Friday, October 27, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. EDT.
Public Call-In Information: Conference call-in number: 1-888-455-2238 and conference call 5295473.
Ivy Davis at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-455-2238 and conference call 5295473. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-455-2238 and conference call 5295473.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
On April 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the 2015-2016 administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (pipes and tubes) from Thailand. This review covers two manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. (Saha Thai) and Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited (Pacific Pipe). The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2015, through February 29, 2016. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to our preliminary findings for Saha Thai. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed producers/exporters are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.”
October 10, 2017.
Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
On April 6, 2017, the Department published in the
The products covered by the antidumping order are certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not exceeding 16 inches. For a full description of the scope of this order, please see the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of issues raised, and to which we responded, in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix.
The Department preliminarily found that Pacific Pipe had no shipments and, therefore, no reviewable transactions during the POR. The Department received no further comments or information that refute this finding. Thus, the Department continues to find that Pacific Pipe had no reviewable transactions during the POR.
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
As a result of our review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period March 1, 2015, through February 29, 2016:
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise, in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review.
For Saha Thai, we will base the assessment rate for the corresponding entries on the margin listed above. Additionally, because the Department determined that Pacific Pipe had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, any suspended entries that entered under Pacific Pipe's name will be liquidated at the all-others rate effective during the POR.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above in the Final Results of Review, including those for which the Department may determine had no shipments during the POR, 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 or another completed segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previously completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the “all-others” rate of 15.67 percent established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
The Department is issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of review (POR) is September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016. This review covers 31 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The Department preliminarily determines that NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. (NEXTEEL) and SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH), the two companies selected for individual examination, sold subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 10, 2017.
Victoria Cho or Deborah Scott, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5075 or (202) 482-2657, respectively.
The Department initiated this administrative review on November 9, 2016.
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 to ACCESS is available to registered users at
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 (
The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are 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 conclusions,
Among the companies under review, Hyundai RB Co., Ltd. (Hyundai RB), Samsung, Samsung C&T Corporation (Samsung C&T), and SeAH Besteel Corporation (SeAH Besteel) properly filed certifications reporting that they had no exports, sales, or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
The Department finds that it is not appropriate to preliminarily rescind the review with respect to these companies but, rather, intends to complete the review with respect to these companies and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review.
The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when the Department limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy
In this review, we have preliminarily calculated weighted-average dumping margins for NEXTEEL and SeAH that are not zero,
The Department preliminarily determines that, for the period September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016, the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
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
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended.
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by NEXTEEL or SeAH for which the producer did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, or for any respondent for which we have a final determination of no shipments, 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.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed in the final results of review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in
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 prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting an administrative review (AR) and a new shipper review (NSR) of the antidumping duty order on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (OTR tires) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) for the AR and NSR is September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016. The administrative review covers six exporters of the subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine that Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd. (Zhongwei), one of three companies selected for individual examination, made sales of subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR. We also preliminarily determine to rescind the new shipper review initiated for Carlisle (Meizhou) Rubber Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Carlisle Meizhou), and CTP Distribution (HK) Limited (CTP HK) (collectively, Carlstar). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective October 10, 2017.
Alex Rosen, 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) 482-7814.
On November 3, 2016, the Department initiated a new shipper review of exports of subject merchandise made by CTP Distribution (HK) Limited (CTP HK), produced in the PRC by Carlisle (Meizhou) Rubber Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Carlisle Meizhou).
The merchandise covered by this order includes new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road and off-highway use, subject to certain exceptions.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), an exporter or producer may request a NSR within one year of the date on which subject merchandise was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, or, if the exporter or producer cannot establish the date of the first entry, then the date on which it first shipped the merchandise for export to the United States.
As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum and Preliminary NSR Rescission Memorandum,
Because we find that Carlstar's request for review was not timely filed, we are preliminarily determining that Carlstar's request did not meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(c), and are rescinding the new shipper review for Carlstar. Because much of the factual information used in our analysis involves business proprietary information, a full discussion of the basis for our preliminary determination is set forth in the Preliminary NSR Rescission Memorandum.
The Department preliminarily determines that information placed on the record by the mandatory respondent, Zhongwei, as well as two separate rate applicants, Qihang and Shandong Zhentai, demonstrates that these companies are entitled to receive separate rates. For additional information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
The Department's policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to these reviews.
The Department is conducting these reviews in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Export and constructed export prices were calculated in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. Because the PRC is a nonmarket economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value (NV) has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 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
The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to respondents not selected for individual examination when the Department limits its examination of companies subject to the administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016:
Additionally, the Department preliminarily determines that Cheng Shing, GTC, and Qingdao Milestone are part of the PRC-wide entity.
The Department intends to disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in these reviews within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review in the
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.
The Department intends to issue the final results of these reviews, which will include the results of our analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by these reviews.
For assessment purposes, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Assessment Rate Modification.
Pursuant to the Department's practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during the administrative review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (
Because we are preliminarily rescinding the new shipper review of Carlstar, we are not making a determination as to whether Carlstar qualifies for a separate rate. Therefore, if the Department proceeds to final rescission, Carlstar will remain part of the PRC-wide entity and, accordingly, any entries covered by this new shipper review will be assessed at the PRC-wide rate. If we do not proceed to final rescission, we will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate for Carlstar, consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1) and will instruct CBP to assess AD duties on all appropriate entries covered by the NSR if the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of the NSR is above
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these reviews for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
Because we preliminarily did not calculate a dumping margin for Carlstar or grant Carlstar a separate rate in this new shipper review, as noted above, we find that Carlstar continues to be part of the PRC-wide entity. The cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity is 105.31 percent. These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also 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 and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete products and a service from the Procurement List that were previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Comments must be received on or before November 5, 2017.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The following products and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), DoD.
Notice of board membership.
This notice announces the appointment of the Department of Defense, Fourth Estate, Performance Review Board (PRB) members, to include the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, Defense Field Activities, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the following Defense Agencies: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Commissary Agency, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defense Contract Management Agency, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Defense Health Agency, Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Legal Services Agency, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Prisoners of War/Missing in Action Accounting Agency, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Missile Defense Agency, and Pentagon Force Protection Agency. The PRB shall provide fair and impartial review of Senior Executive Service and Senior Professional performance appraisals and make recommendations regarding performance ratings and performance awards to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
The board membership is applicable beginning on September 14, 2017.
Laura E. Devlin, Assistant Director for Office of the Secretary of Defense Senior Executive Management Office, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Department of Defense, (703) 693-8373.
The publication of PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following executives are appointed to the Office of the Secretary of Defense PRB with specific PRB panel assignments being made from this group. Executives listed will serve a one-year renewable term, beginning September 14, 2017.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences will take place.
Friday, November 3, 2017, open to the public from 8:00 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. Closed session will occur from approximately 10:50 a.m. to 11:50 a.m.
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Everett Alvarez Jr. Board of Regents Room (D3001), Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
Jennifer Nuetzi James, 301-295-3066 (Voice), 301-295-1960 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is 4301 Jones Bridge Road, A1020, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Web site:
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), Department of Defense (DoD).
Federal advisory committee meeting notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel. This meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, October 25 and 26, 2017. Public registration will begin at 8:45 a.m. on each day. For entrance into the meeting, you must meet the necessary requirements for entrance into the Pentagon. For more detailed information, please see the following link:
Pentagon Library, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. The meeting room will be displayed on the information screen for both days. The Pentagon Library is located in the Pentagon Library and Conference Center (PLC2) across the Corridor 8 bridge.
LTC Robert McDonald, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), 3600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3600, email:
Minor changes to the agenda will be announced at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the FACA database after the meeting.
Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact LTC McDonald, the committee DFO, or Mr. Nash at the email address or telephone number listed in the
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on September 29, 2017, the California Public Utilities Commission, Transmission Agency of Northern California, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, M-S-R Public Power Agency, City of Santa Clara, California, doing business as Silicon Valley Power, State Water Contractors, Modesto Irrigation District, and Northern California Power Agency (collectively, Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Respondent) pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e), 825(e) (2012), and Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206 (2017), alleging that Respondent's proposed Transmission Owner (TO) rates substantially exceed its cost of service and may well exceed the revenue requirement comprising its last clean rate. Complainants request that the Commission order an investigation into Respondent's TO rates and exercise its authority to establish the earliest possible refund effective date, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
Complainants certify that copies of the complaint were served on the contact for PG&E.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2017). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests, must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that on September 28, 2017, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056-5310, filed in Docket No. CP17-496-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-535-000, to offset and replace a segment of its 20-inch-diameter Line 1 pipeline in Linden and Woodbridge, New Jersey at a crossing of the Rahway River (Rahway River Pipe Replacement Project).
Specifically, Texas Eastern proposes to install a new, approximate 1,250-foot section of 20-inch diameter pipeline beneath the Rahway River. The new segment will replace the existing segment of Line 1 pipeline, only a small portion of which will be removed.
Texas Eastern states that the Rahway River Pipe Replacement Project is designed to ensure the continued safe operation of Texas Eastern's pipeline facilities. Texas Eastern asserts that the project will have no impact on the certificated capacity of its system, and there will be no abandonment or reduction in service to its customers. Texas Eastern estimates the cost of the project to be approximately $20 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Lisa A. Connolly, Director Rates and Certificates, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, by telephone at (713) 627-4102, by facsimile at (713) 627-5947, or by email at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of York Haven Power Company, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 23, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Nylon Corporation of America`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 23, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
Take notice that on October 3, 2017, pursuant to section 292.402 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules and Regulations,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Lamarr Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 23, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after 1935.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Safer Detergent Stewardship Initiative (SDSI) Program” and identified by EPA ICR No. 2261.04 and OMB Control No. 2070-0171, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2018. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before December 11, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0297, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Responses to this collection of information are voluntary. Respondents may claim all or part of a response confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is a decrease of 100 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease reflects EPA's expectation, based on past experience, that significantly fewer respondents will apply for recognition as Champions or Partners in the next three years. This change is an adjustment.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of a request by the registrant to voluntarily cancel their registrations of certain products containing the pesticide tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP). The request would not terminate the last TCVP products registered for use in the United States. EPA intends to grant this request at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the request, or unless the registrant withdraws its request. If this request is granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the registration has been cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.
Comments must be received on or before November 9, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0316, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Khue Nguyen, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 703-347-0248; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
1.
2.
This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from the registrant Bayer Healthcare, LLC to cancel certain TCVP product registrations. TCVP is an organophosphate insecticide registered for use on livestock and livestock premises and as pet collars and pet dust/powders in residential settings. In a letter dated July 7, 2017, Bayer Healthcare, LLC requested EPA to cancel certain pesticide product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit III. Specifically, Bayer stated that the pesticide product registrations identified in Table 1 were TCVP pet collar products that were never commercialized. Bayer noted that since the products identified in Table 1 were not in the channels of trade, no existing stocks provision is required for these products. The registrant's request will not terminate the last TCVP products registered in the United States.
This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from a registrant to cancel certain TCVP product registrations. The affected products and the registrant making the request are identified in Tables 1 and 2 of this unit.
Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant or if the Agency determines
Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for the registrant of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
The TCVP registrant has requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for product cancellation or use deletion should submit the withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the action. If the request for voluntary cancellation is granted, the Agency intends to publish the cancellation order in the
In any order issued in response to this request for cancellation of product registrations, EPA proposes to include the following provisions for the treatment of any existing stocks of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit III.
For this voluntary cancellation request, the registrant indicates that the products listed in Table 1 of Unit III are not in the channels of trade because they were never commercialized. Therefore, no existing stocks provision is needed. The cancellation will be effective on the date of publication of the cancellation order in the
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
An Environmental Modeling Public Meeting (EMPM) will be held on Wednesday, October 18, 2017. This Notice announces the location and time for the meeting and provides tentative agenda topics. The EMPM provides a public forum for EPA and its stakeholders to discuss current issues related to modeling pesticide fate, transport, and exposure for pesticide risk assessments in a regulatory context.
The meeting will be held on October 18, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Requests to participate in the meeting must be received on or before October 20, 2017.
To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), One Potomac Yard (South Building), First Floor Conference Center (S-1200), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
Stephen Wente or Jessica Joyce, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-0001 and (703) 347-8191; fax number: (703) 305-0204; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are required to
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879, is available at
On a biannual interval, an Environmental Modeling Public Meeting is held for presentation and discussion of current issues related to modeling pesticide fate, transport, and exposure for risk assessment in a regulatory context. Meeting dates and abstract requests are announced through the “empmlist” forum on the LYRIS list server at
You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the person listed under
Assessing Exposure and Risk to Pollinators and Plants: The 2017 Fall EMPM will provide a forum for presentations on methods for assessing pesticide exposure and risk to pollinators and plants. Potential pollinator topics include novel risk assessment approaches and advances in model development. In regard to terrestrial and wetland plants, potential topics include the status of the EPA's new exposure model and investigations of variability inherent in seedling emergence and vegetative vigor toxicity studies. Updates on ongoing topics will also be provided,
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Clean Water Act Section 404 State-Assumed Programs” (EPA ICR No. 0220.13, OMB Control No. 2040-0168) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension, which is currently approved through November 30, 2017. Public comments on the ICR renewal were requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 9, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0023, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Kathy Hurld, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division (4502T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1269; fax number: 202-566-1349; 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
To request to assume the CWA section 404 permit program, states/tribes must demonstrate that they meet the statutory and regulatory requirements (40 CFR 233) for an approvable program. Specified information and documents
States/tribes with assumed programs must be able to issue permits that assure compliance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Sufficient information must be provided in the application so that states/tribes and federal agencies reviewing the permit can evaluate, avoid, minimize and compensate for any anticipated impacts resulting from the proposed project. EPA's assumption regulations establish required elements that must be included in the state/tribe's permit application, so that sufficient information is available to make a thorough analysis of anticipated impacts. (40 CFR 233.30). These minimum information requirements generally reflect the information that must be submitted when applying for a section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
EPA has an oversight role for assumed 404 permitting programs to ensure that state/tribal programs comply with applicable requirements and that state/tribal permit decisions adequately consider, avoid, minimize and compensate for anticipated impacts. States/tribes must evaluate their programs annually and submit the results in a report to EPA. EPA's assumption regulations establish minimum requirements for the annual report (40 CFR 233.52).
The information included in the state/tribe's assumption request and the information included in a permit application is made available for public review and comment. The information included in the annual report to EPA is made available to the public. EPA does not make any assurances of confidentiality for this information. (CWA section 404(h); CWA section 404(j); 40 CFR 230.10, 233.20, 233.21, 233.34, and 233.50; and 33 CFR 325)
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Banks of the United States (EXIM), 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.
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 EXIM assistance under its insurance program. EXIM customers are able to submit this form on paper or electronically.
Comments must be received on or before December 11, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 635(a)(1), to determine eligibility of the applicant for EXIM assistance.
The application tool can be reviewed at:
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
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 11, 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.
The information will be used by the Commission staff in carrying out its duties under the Submarine Cable Landing License Act of 1921, 47 U.S.C. 34-39, Executive Order 10530, section 5(a), and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The information collections are necessary largely to determine whether and under what conditions the Commission should grant a license for proposed submarine cables landing in the United States, including applicants that are, or are affiliated with, foreign carriers in the destination market of the proposed submarine cable. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 10530, the Commission has been delegated the President's authority under the Cable Landing License Act to grant cable landing licenses, provided that the Commission must obtain the approval of the State Department and seek advice from other government agencies as appropriate. If the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, applicants will not obtain the authorizations necessary to provide telecommunications services and facilities, and the Commission will be unable to carry out its mandate under the Cable Landing License Act and Executive Order 10530. In addition, without the collection, the United States would jeopardize its ability to fulfill the U.S. obligations as negotiated under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecom Agreement because certain of these information collection requirements are imperative to detecting and deterring anticompetitive conduct. They are also necessary to preserve the Executive Branch agencies' and the Commission's ability to review foreign investments for national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade concerns.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of a new matching program.
In accordance with the
Written comments are due on or before November 9, 2017. This computer matching program will commence on November 9, 2017 unless comments are received that require a contrary determination.
Send comments to Mr. Leslie F. Smith, Privacy Manager, Information Technology (IT), Room 1-C216, FCC, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or to
Mr. Leslie F. Smith, (202) 418-0217, or
The Lifeline program provides support for discounted broadband and voice services to low-income consumers. Lifeline is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under FCC direction. Consumers qualify for Lifeline through proof of income or participation in a qualifying program, such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Federal Public Housing Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit. In a Report and Order adopted on March 31, 2016, the Commission ordered USAC to create a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (“National Verifier”), including the National Lifeline Eligibility Database (LED), that would match data about Lifeline applicants and subscribers with other data sources to verify the eligibility of an applicant or subscriber. The Commission found that the National Verifier would reduce compliance costs for Lifeline service providers, improve service for Lifeline subscribers, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.
• Colorado Office of Information Technology;
• Mississippi Department of Human Services;
• New Mexico Human Services Department; and
• Utah Department of Workforce Services.
47 U.S.C. 254; 47 CFR 54.400
In the
The categories of individuals whose information is involved in this matching program include, but are not limited to, those individuals (residing in a single household) who have applied for Lifeline benefits; are currently receiving Lifeline benefits; are individuals who enable another individual in their household to qualify for Lifeline benefits; are minors whose status qualifies a parent or guardian for Lifeline benefits; are individuals who have received Lifeline benefits; or are individuals acting on behalf of an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) who have enrolled individuals in the Lifeline program.
The categories of records involved in the matching program include, but are not limited to, a Lifeline applicant or subscriber's full name; physical and mailing addresses; partial Social Security number or Tribal ID number; date of birth; qualifying person's full name (if qualifying person is different from subscriber); qualifying person's physical and mailing addresses; qualifying person's partial Social Security number or Tribal ID number, and qualifying person's date of birth. The National Verifier will transfer these data elements to the source agencies, which will respond either “yes” or “no” that the individual is enrolled in a Lifeline-qualifying assistance program.
The USAC records shared as part of this matching program reside in the Lifeline system of records, FCC/WCB-1, Lifeline Program, a notice of which the FCC published at 82 FR 38686 (Aug. 15, 2017). The August 15, 2017 notice is an update to this system of records that reflects the new uses involved in operating this matching program and it modified the system of records, notice of which the FCC previously had published at 78 FR 73535 (Dec. 6, 2013).
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10403—First State Bank, Cranford, New Jersey (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of First State 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.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10368—First Heritage Bank, Snohomish, Washington (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of First Heritage 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,
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement for the Architect-Engineer Qualifications form, SF 330. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before November 9, 2017.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover Sr. Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Division, GSA, at 202-501-1448, or email
Federal agencies use the Standard Form (SF) 330 to obtain information from architect-engineer (A-E) firms about their professional qualifications. Federal agencies select firms for A-E contracts on the basis of professional qualifications as required by 40 U.S.C. Chapter 11, Selection of Architects Engineers, and Part 36 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
SF 330, Part I is used by all executive agencies to obtain information from architect-engineer firms interested in a particular project. The information on the form is reviewed by a selection panel to assist in the selection of the most qualified architect-engineer firm to perform the specific project. The form is designed to provide a uniform method for architect-engineer firms to submit information on experience, personnel, and capabilities of the architect-engineer firm to perform, along with information on the consultants they expect to collaborate with on the specific project.
SF 330, Part II is used by all executive agencies to obtain general uniform information about a firm's experience in architect-engineering projects. Architect-engineer firms are encouraged to update the form annually. The information obtained on this form is used to determine if a firm should be solicited for architect-engineer projects.
The number of new Architectural Services contracts (NAICS code 541310) awarded in FPDS-NG for FY 2016 was 3,256. The public burden hours have been reduced due to the reduction in the number of new Architectural Services contracts awarded in FY 2016 listed in FPDS-NG.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public
CDC must receive written comments on or before December 11, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0088 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Public Health Associate Program (PHAP) Alumni Assessment (OMB Control No. 0920-1078, Exp. 08/31/2018)—Revision—Office for State, Tribal Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) works to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. CDC strives to fulfill this mission, in part, through a competent and capable public health workforce. One mechanism to developing the public health workforce is through training programs like the Public Health Associate Program (PHAP).
The mission of PHAP is to train and provide experiential learning to early career professionals who contribute to the public health workforce. PHAP targets recent graduates with bachelors or masters degrees who are beginning a career in public health. Each year, CDC enrolls a new cohort of up to 200 associates in the program. Associates are CDC employees who complete two-year assignments in a host site (
CDC began ongoing systematic PHAP evaluation efforts in 2014. Evaluation priorities focus on continuously learning about program processes and activities to improve the program's quality and documenting program outcomes to demonstrate impact and inform decision making about future program direction.
The purpose of this project is to collect information from two key stakeholder groups (host site supervisors and alumni) via two distinct surveys. The information collected will enable CDC to: (a) Learn about program processes and activities to improve the program's quality, and (b) document program outcomes to demonstrate impact and inform decision making about future program direction. CDC may publish the results of these surveys in peer-reviewed journals and/or in non-scientific publications such as practice reports and/or fact sheets. Project revisions include the following adjustments: (1) Expansion from one data collection instrument to two (both of which will inform improvements to the Public Health Associate Program (PHAP) and document evidence of quality and value); and (2) name change to reflect this adjustment from “Public Health Associate Program (PHAP) Alumni Assessment” to “Public Health Associate Program (PHAP): Assessment of Quality and Value.”
The respondent universe is comprised of PHAP host site supervisors and PHAP alumni. CDC will administer both surveys electronically and provide a link to the survey Web sites in the email invitation. CDC will deploy the PHAP Host Site Supervisor survey every year to all active PHAP host site supervisors. The total estimated burden is 20 minutes per respondent per survey.
CDC will administer the PHAP Alumni Survey at three different time points (1 year post-graduation, 3 years post-graduation, and 5 years post-graduation) to PHAP alumni. Assessment questions will remain consistent at each administration (
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the
CDC must receive written comments on or before December 11, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0083 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program (2015-2020) Evaluation—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP), requests a three-year OMB approval for a new collection.
The CDC is the primary Federal agency for protecting health and promoting quality of life through the prevention and control of disease, injury, and disability. CDC is committed to programs that reduce the health and economic consequences of the leading causes of death and disability, thereby ensuring a long, productive, healthy life for all people.
Stroke remains a leading cause of serious, long-term disability and is the fifth leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and accidents. Estimates indicate that approximately 795,000 people suffer a first-ever or recurrent stroke each year with more than 130,000 deaths annually. Although there have been significant advances in preventing and treating stroke, the rising prevalence of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity has increased the relative risk for stroke, especially in African American populations. Moreover, stroke's lifetime direct cost of health care and indirect cost of lost productivity is staggering and imposes a substantial societal economic burden. Coverdell-funded state programs are in the forefront of developing and implementing system-change efforts to improve emergency response systems, enhance the quality
When Congress directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to establish the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program (PCNASP) in 2001, CDC intended to monitor trends in stroke and stroke care, with the ultimate mission of improving the quality of care for stroke patients in the United States. Since 2015, CDC has funded and provided technical assistance to nine state health departments to develop comprehensive stroke systems of care. A comprehensive system of care improves quality of care by creating seamless transitions for individuals experiencing stroke. In such a system, pre-hospital providers, in-hospital providers, and early post-hospital providers coordinate patient hand-offs and ensure continuity of care. CDC contracted with RTI International to conduct a national evaluation of the state health departments awarded grants in 2015 to assess their implementation in their state-based contexts and progress toward short- and intermediate-term outcomes.
CDC and RTI International propose to collect information from all nine funded PCNASP grantees to gain insight into the effectiveness of implementation of their quality improvement strategies, development (and use) of a data integrated management system, and partner collaboration in building comprehensive state-wide stroke systems of care. The information collection will focus on describing PCNASP specific contributions to effective state-based stroke systems of care and the costs associated with this work.
Two components of the information collection include: (1) Program implementation cost data collection from program partners using a cost and resource utilization tool; and (2) telephone interviews with key program stakeholders, such as the PCNASP principal investigator, program manager, quality improvement specialist, data analyst/program evaluator, and partner support staff. Cost data collection will focus on a stratified sample of partners' cumulative spending to support PCNASP activities, spending by reporting period, and spending associated with specific PCNASP strategies related to building comprehensive state-wide stroke systems of care. Interview questions will target how each grantee implemented its strategies, challenges encountered and how they were overcome, factors that facilitated implementation, lessons learned along the way, and observed outcomes and improvements.
The information to be collected does not currently exist for large scale, statewide programs that employ multiple combinations of strategies led by state public health departments to build comprehensive stroke systems of care. The insights to be gained from this data collection will be critical to improving immediate efforts and achieving the goals of spreading and replicating state-level strategies that are proven programmatically and are cost-effective in contributing to a higher quality of care for stroke patients.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery. In order to work continuously to ensure that our programs are effective and meet our customers' needs, the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seeks to obtain Office of Management and Budget approval of a generic information collection request to collect qualitative feedback on our service delivery.
CDC must receive written comments on or before December 11, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0087 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (OMB Control Number 0920-1071, Expires 6/30/2018)—Extension—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC/NCEZID is seeking a three-year extension of OMB Control Number 0920-1071 to continue collecting routine customer feedback on agency service delivery.
Executive Order 12862 directs Federal agencies to provide service to the public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. In order to work continuously to ensure that our programs are effective and meet our customers' needs, the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (hereafter the “Agency”) seeks to obtain OMB approval of a generic clearance to collect qualitative feedback on our service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study.
This collection of information is necessary to enable the Agency to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with our commitment to improving service delivery. The information collected from our customers and stakeholders will help ensure that users have an effective, efficient, and satisfying experience with the Agency's programs. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
Since gaining approval in June 2015, NCEZID has utilized 16,800 responses and 2,029, burden hours for nine separate information collection projects.
There is no cost to respondents other than the time to participate.
Authorizing legislation comes from Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed study titled “Understanding Decisions and Barriers about PrEP Use and Uptake among Men Who Have Sex with Men.” This study will provide insight on individual and community level PrEP-related decision-making, and identify barriers and facilitators to successful PrEP initiation and PrEP acceptability.
CDC must receive written comments on or before December 11, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0075 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Understanding Decisions and Barriers about PrEP Use and Uptake among Men Who Have Sex With Men—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This project involves original, formative research toward improving the uptake and adherence necessary to achieve efficacious levels of protection offered by pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among the most affected population. HIV incidence and prevalence are higher among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) than any other risk group in the U.S. Approximately half of all diagnosed HIV infections are among gay, bisexual, and other MSM. The FDA-approved PrEP regimen, daily Tenofovir/emtricitabine (aka Truvada®), has shown greater than 90% efficacy in reducing HIV infections among MSM when taken in accordance with its prescribed daily schedule. In 2014, CDC published clinical practice guidelines for the use of PrEP in high-risk populations, and began national promotion of PrEP as an effective HIV prevention strategy for MSM. While hailed as an HIV-prevention “game-changer,” in reality PrEP uptake has been slow. Some studies report a wide range in the percentages of MSM (28-81%) interested in PrEP. In addition, other studies indicate that specific cities have alarmingly low rates of PrEP uptake (for example, the estimate for Atlanta is 2%). Moreover, recent survey findings have shown that less than 1 in 10 MSM on PrEP are adherent to their PrEP regimen; adherence is necessary to optimize efficacy.
In order to develop effective programs that increase PrEP uptake among MSM at greatest risk for HIV, studies are needed to better understand the decisions men make about their HIV prevention needs. Qualitative methods will be used to explore in-depth the “Whys” and “How's” of MSM's decisions to refuse or use PrEP, and barriers and challenges to successfully undertake a PrEP medication regimen. Quantitative methods will be used to understand the HIV risk behavior context, attitudes towards PrEP, health seeking behavior, and acceptability of new modes of PrEP delivery (that differ from current recommendation of daily PrEP and that are in development or discussion) and emerging biomedical HIV prevention options.
The purpose of this research is to explore decisions, barriers, and facilitators about PrEP use among MSM: (1) Who were offered PrEP but refused it; (2) who were interested in or started a PrEP regimen but did not follow through; and (3) who are eligible for PrEP per CDC guidelines (report condomless anal sex within last 3 months).
This study will provide insight on individual and community level PrEP-related decision-making, and identify barriers and facilitators to successful PrEP initiation and PrEP acceptability. Findings will improve programming, in line with the CDC Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention goal of high-impact prevention to reduce HIV infections in the Unite States. Findings will also assist the CDC and frontline public health programs in identifying and designing programs and intervention approaches that encourage, support, and maintain appropriate PrEP uptake among eligible MSM and anticipate future HIV prevention needs, including anticipated changes in PrEP delivery.
The total annual burden hours are 335. There are no costs to the respondents other than their time, travel costs, and the total estimated annual burden hours.
Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services.
Final Notice.
This final notice advises the public that the Indian Health Service (IHS) has decided to expand the geographic boundaries of the Purchased/Referred Care Delivery Area (PRCDA) for the Passamaquoddy Tribe's reservation at Indian Township (Passamaquoddy at Indian Township or Tribe) in the State of Maine.
October 10, 2017.
Terri Schmidt, Acting Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop: 10E85C, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Telephone (301) 443-2694 (This is not a toll free number).
The Passamaquoddy PRCDA previously covered Aroostook and Washington Counties in the State of Maine. The expanded PRCDA for the Tribe's reservation at Indian Township includes Hancock County in the State of Maine. This notice only relates to the expansion of the Tribe's PRCDA for the Indian Township reservation.
The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-420; H. Rept. 96-1353) includes the intent of Congress to fund and provide Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) to the Passamaquoddy Tribe. The Passamaquoddy Tribe has two reservations: Indian Township and Pleasant Point. The PRCDA for the Indian Township reservation is Aroostook County, Maine, and Washington County, Maine. The PRCDA for the Pleasant Point reservation is Washington County, Maine, south of State Route 9, and Aroostook County, Maine.
As applicable to the Tribes, these regulations provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRCDA shall consist of a county that includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties that have a common boundary with the reservation, 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6). The regulations also provide that after consultation with the Tribal governing body or bodies on those reservations included within the PRCDA, the Secretary may from time to time, re-designate areas within the United States for inclusion in or exclusion from a PRCDA. The regulations require that certain criteria must be considered before any re-designation is made. The criteria are as follows:
(1) The number of Indians residing in the area proposed to be so included or excluded;
(2) Whether the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe;
(3) The geographic proximity to the reservation of the area whose inclusion or exclusion is being considered; and
(4) The level of funding which would be available for the provision of PRC, 42 CFR 136.22(b).
Additionally, the regulations require that any re-designation of a PRCDA must be made in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553).
The Passamaquoddy Tribe is a federally recognized Tribe with two separate reservations, Indian Township and Pleasant Point, located approximately 50 miles apart. Each respective reservation elects its own governing body and each reservation has a separate PRCDA. The Indian Township reservation of the Passamaquoddy Tribe has a PRCDA consisting of Aroostook and Washington Counties in the State of Maine. The PRCDA for the Passamaquoddy Tribe's reservation at Pleasant Point is Washington County, Maine, south of State Route 9, and Aroostook County, Maine. The IHS adopted a PRCDA for each of the Passamaquoddy Tribe's reservations for the purposes of administering benefits under the IHS PRC program. Thus, members of the Tribe who reside outside of Aroostook and Washington Counties do not reside within the PRCDA of the Passamaquoddy Tribe and they are currently not eligible for PRC services from the Tribe.
The Passamaquoddy Tribe has a significant number of members who are not residents of Aroostook and Washington Counties. According to Tribal estimates, 257 enrolled Passamaquoddy members reside in Hancock County in the State of Maine and remain actively involved with the Tribe, but they are not currently eligible for PRC services. The Tribe provides direct services to its members by operating a clinic in Washington County.
Under 42 CFR 136.23, those otherwise eligible Indians who do not reside on a reservation but reside within a PRCDA must be either members of the Tribe or maintain close economic and social ties with the Tribe. In this case, in applying the aforementioned PRCDA re-designation criteria required by operative regulations, the following findings are made:
1. By expanding, the Tribe estimates the current eligible population will be increased by 257.
2. The Tribe has determined that these 257 individuals are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe.
3. The expanded area, Hancock County, Maine, maintains a common boundary with Washington County, Maine, the county in which the Tribe's Indian Township reservation is located.
4. The Tribe will use its existing Federal allocation for PRC funds to provide services to the expanded population. No additional financial resources will be allocated by the IHS to the Tribe to provide services to Tribal members residing in Hancock County.
The IHS did not receive comments in response to the notice proposing to expand the Tribe's PRCDA. Accordingly, the purpose of this
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Final notice.
The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services hereby issues this final notice to re-designate the Purchased/Referred Care Delivery Area (PRCDA) for the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation (Tribe) (previously known as the Smith River Rancheria of Smith River, California), to provide Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) services to their Tribal members residing in Curry County, Oregon, which is in the Portland Area Indian Health Service (IHS). The Tolowa Dee-ni's Tribal Headquarters is located 3 miles south of the California-Oregon border in Northern California.
The entire State of California, excluding the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Kern, Merced, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Solano, Stanislaus, and Ventura, was designated by the IHS as a PRCDA, formerly known as a Contract Health Service Delivery Area, in accordance with statute. The current PRCDA for Tolowa Dee-ni' Tribal members is the statutorily specified California PRCDA. The expanded PRCDA for the Tolowa Dee-ni' Tribe includes the statutorily specified California PRCDA and Curry County in the State of Oregon.
This notice shall take effect on October 10, 2017.
Terri Schmidt, Acting Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail stop: 10E85C, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Telephone 301/443-2694 (This is not a toll free number).
As applicable to the Tribes, these regulations provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRCDA shall consist of a county that includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties that have a common boundary with the reservation, 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6). The regulations also provide that after consultation with the Tribal governing body or bodies on those reservations included within the PRCDA, the Secretary may from time to time, re-designate areas within the United States for inclusion in or exclusion from a PRCDA. The regulations require that certain criteria must be considered before any re-designation is made. The criteria are as follows:
(1) The number of Indians residing in the area proposed to be so included or excluded;
(2) Whether the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe;
(3) The geographic proximity to the reservation of the area whose inclusion or exclusion is being considered; and
(4) The level of funding which would be available for the provision of PRC, 42 CFR 136.22(b).
Additionally, the regulations require that any re-designation of a PRCDA must be made in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). See 42 CFR 136.22(c). In compliance with this requirement, we are publishing this final notice. Congress directed the IHS to designate the entire State of California as a PRCDA, excluding certain counties, under section 810 of the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act, Public Law 94-437, as amended (25 U.S.C. 1680). The IHS has utilized the congressionally specified PRCDA for the purposes of administering PRC benefits to members of the Tribe. Thus, members of the Tribe who reside outside of the statutorily established California PRCDA do not reside within the Tolowa Dee-ni's current PRCDA and are currently not eligible for PRC services.
The IHS has historically established PRCDAs in accordance with Congressional intent but has preserved regulatory flexibility to re-designate areas as appropriate for inclusion in or exclusion from PRCDA under PRC regulations. One of the criteria for such re-designations is the geographic proximity of the expanded area to the existing reservation or PRCDA. Here, the IHS is expanding the Tribe's PRCDA beyond the geographic description in 25 U.S.C. 1680 to include a county adjacent to the Tribe's existing PRCDA, in a neighboring state. There are already PRCDAs that include part of the State of California and part of another state, for example, Cocopah Tribe of Arizona, (Yuma, Arizona, and Imperial, California); Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California, (La Paz, Arizona; Riverside, California; San Bernardino, California; and Yuma, Arizona); Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California and Nevada, (Nevada; Mohave, Arizona; San Bernardino, California); and the Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California and Arizona, (Yuma, Arizona; and Imperial, California).
The Tolowa Dee-ni' Tribe has a significant number of Tribal members who are not residents of California. The Tribe asserts that 177 Tribal members reside outside of its PRCDA, in Curry County, in the State of Oregon, and are not able to access PRC funds from either the California Area facility (Smith River Howonquet Indian Health Center) or from the closest Portland Area facility.
Under 42 CFR 136.23, those otherwise eligible Indians who do not reside on a reservation, but reside within a PRCDA must be either members of the Tribe or maintain close economic and social ties with the Tribe. In this case, in applying the aforementioned PRCDA re-designation criteria required by operative regulations codified at 42 CFR part 136, subpart C, the following findings are made:
1. By expanding, the Tribe estimates the current eligible population will be increased by 177.
2. The Tribe has determined that these 177 individuals are members of the Tribe and they are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe.
3. The expanded area, including Curry County in the State of Oregon, maintains a common boundary with the State of California and the statutorily created California PRCDA.
4. Generally, the Tribal members located in Curry County in the State of Oregon currently do not use the Indian health system for their PRC health care needs. The Tribe will use its existing Federal allocation for PRC funds to provide services to the expanded population. No additional financial resources will be allocated at this time by the IHS to the Tribe to provide services to Tribal members residing in Curry County in the State of Oregon.
The
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NIH Clinical Center Research Hospital Board.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The portion of the meeting devoted to the identification and evaluation of specific candidates for consideration for leadership positions in the Clinical Center will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. Premature disclosure of potential candidates and their qualifications, as well as the discussions by the committee, could significantly frustrate NIH's ability to recruit these individuals and the consideration of personnel qualifications, performance, and the competence of individuals as candidates would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIA.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute On Aging, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health published a document in the
Richard Rodriguez, 240-276-6661.
In the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the NHLBI Special Emphasis Panel.
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.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This proposed information collection was previously published in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; revision of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This proposed information
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (we, Service) is proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 11, 2017.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by mail to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Service; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Service enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Service minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment
• 1018-0100, “Migratory Birds and Wetlands Conservation Grant Programs, 50 CFR 17 and 23”;
• 1018-0109, “Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Grants and Cooperative Agreements, 50 CFR 80, 81, 84, 85, and 86”;
• 1018-0123, “International Conservation Grant Programs”; and
• 1018-0154, “Wolf-Livestock Demonstration Project Grant Program.”
In this revision, we are consolidating all of the information collection requirements associated with the four OMB Control Numbers identified above into one control number, OMB Control No. 1018-0100, with a new title to more accurately reflect the purpose of the consolidated collection of information. Consolidation of OMB approvals into a single collection reduces burden on the public by ensuring consistency in the application and award administration processes across all Service financial assistance programs. If OMB approves this request, we will discontinue OMB Control Numbers 1018-0109, 1018-0123, and 1018-0154.
We issue financial assistance through grants and cooperative agreement awards to individuals; commercial organizations; institutions of higher education; non-profit organizations; foreign entities; and State, local, and Tribal governments. The Service administers a wide variety of financial assistance programs, authorized by Congress to address the Service's mission, as listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). The CFDA is a government-wide compendium of Federal programs, projects, services, and activities that provide assistance or benefits to the American public. It contains financial and non-financial assistance programs administered by departments and establishments of the Federal government. The CFDA listing includes program types and numbers, the specific type of assistance for each program, and includes the applicable authorities for each program within the description. A list of currently authorized Service financial assistance programs can be found at
Some assistance programs are mandatory and funds are awarded to eligible recipients according to a formula set by law or policy. Other programs are discretionary and award funds based on competitive selection and merit review processes. Mandatory grant recipients must give us specific, detailed project information during the application process so that we may ensure that projects are eligible for the mandatory funding, are substantial in character and design, and comply with all applicable Federal laws. Discretionary grant applicants must give us information as dictated by the program requirements and as requested in the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO), including that information that addresses ranking criteria. All recipients must submit financial and performance reports that contain information necessary for us to track costs and accomplishments. The rewardees' reports must adhere to schedules and rules in 2 CFR part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, which was effective as of December 26, 2014. Part 200 prescribes the information that Federal agencies must collect, and financial assistance recipients must provide, and also supports this information collection.
The Service uses the grant process to provide technical and financial assistance to other Federal agencies, States, local governments, Native American tribes, non-governmental organizations, citizen groups, and private landowners, for the conservation and management of fish and wildlife resources. The process begins with the submission of an application. The respective program reviews and prioritizes proposed projects based on their respective project selection criteria. Pending availability of funding, applicants can submit their application documents to the Service through the Federal
As part of this collection of information, the Service collects the following types of information requiring approval under the PRA:
A.
• Required Federal financial assistance application forms (SF-424 suite of forms, as applicable to specified project).
• Project Narrative—generally includes items such as:
○ Statement of need,
○ Project goals and objectives,
○ Methods used and timetable,
○ Description of key personnel qualifications,
○ Description of stakeholders or other relevant organizations/individuals involved and level of involvement,
○ Project monitoring and evaluation plan, and/or
○ Other pertinent project specific information.
• Pertinent project budget-related information—generally includes items such as:
○ Budget justification,
○ Indirect cost statement,
○ Federally-funded equipment list, and/or
○ Certifications and disclosures.
B.
• Performance reports,
• Financial reports, and
• Work plan and accomplishment reports.
C.
D.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before November 9, 2017.
•
•
When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on
Joyce Russell, Government Information Specialist, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: IA; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2023; facsimile 703-358-2280.
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import one male captive-born Amur leopard (
The applicant requests a permit to export 12 male captive-born ring-tailed lemurs (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from captive-held Asian elephants (
The applicant requests a permit to export two captive-born bonobo (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the golden parakeet (
The applicant requests a renewal of a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the jackass penguin (
The applicant requests a renewal of a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for barasingha (
The following applicants each request a permit to import sport-hunted trophies of a male bontebok (
If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this notice by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via regulations.gov, your entire comment, including any personal identifying information, will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy comments on
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 11, 2017.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by mail to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Service; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Service enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Service minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Guidelines discuss various risks to species of concern from wind energy projects, including collisions with wind turbines and associated infrastructure; loss and degradation of habitat from turbines and infrastructure; fragmentation of large habitat blocks into smaller segments that may not support sensitive species; displacement and behavioral changes; and indirect effects such as increased predator populations or introduction of invasive plants. The Guidelines assist developers in identifying species of concern that may potentially be affected by proposed projects, including, but not limited to:
• Migratory birds;
• Bats;
• Bald and golden eagles, and other birds of prey;
• Prairie chickens and sage grouse; and
• Listed, proposed, or candidate endangered and threatened species.
The Guidelines follow a tiered approach. The wind energy developer begins at Tier 1 or Tier 2, which entails gathering of existing data to help identify any potential risks to wildlife and their habitats at proposed wind energy project sites. The developer then proceeds through subsequent tiers, as appropriate, to collect information in increasing detail until the level of risk is adequately ascertained and a decision on whether or not to develop the site can be made. Many projects may not proceed beyond Tier 1 or 2, when developers become aware of potential barriers, including high risks to wildlife. Developers would only have an interest in adhering to the Guidelines for those projects that proceed beyond Tier 1 or 2.
At each tier, wind energy developers and operators should retain documentation to provide to the Service. Such documentation may include copies of correspondence with the Service, results of pre- and post-construction studies conducted at project sites, bird and bat conservation strategies, or any other record that supports a developer's adherence to the Guidelines. The extent of the documentation will depend on the conditions of the site being developed. Sites with greater risk of impacts to wildlife and habitats will likely involve more extensive communication with the Service and longer durations of pre- and post-construction studies than sites with little risk.
Distributed or community-scale wind energy projects are unlikely to have significant adverse impacts to wildlife and their habitats. The Guidelines recommend that developers of these small-scale projects conduct the desktop analysis described in Tier 1 or Tier 2 using publicly available information to determine whether they should communicate with the Service. Since such project designs usually include a single turbine associated with existing development, conducting a Tier 1 or Tier 2 analysis for distributed or community-scale wind energy projects should incur limited non-hour burden costs. For such projects, if there is no potential risk identified, a developer will have no need to communicate with the Service regarding the project or to conduct studies described in Tiers 3, 4, and 5.
Adherence to the Guidelines is voluntary. Following the Guidelines does not relieve any individual, company, or agency of the responsibility to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Developers of wind energy projects have a responsibility to comply with the law; for example, they must obtain incidental take authorization for species protected by the Endangered Species Act and/or Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of Plats of Survey.
The plats of survey described below are scheduled to be officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Santa Fe, New Mexico, thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication.
These plats will be available for inspection in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Copies may be obtained from this office upon payment. Contact Carlos Martinez at 505-954-2096, or by email at
The plat, in three sheets, representing the dependent resurvey and survey, in Townships 13 & 14 North, Range 17 West, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted September 6, 2017, for Group 1186 NM. This survey was executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Region, and is necessary for the management of these lands.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 19 North, Range 9 East, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted May 25, 2017, for Group 1120 NM. This survey was executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Region, for the Pojoaque Pueblo, and is necessary for the management of these lands.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 18 North, Range 10 East, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted June 8, 2017, for Group 1180 NM. This survey was executed at the request of the U.S. Forest Service, Region 3, and is necessary for the management of these lands.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted September 26, 2017, for Group 1171 NM. This survey was executed at the request of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and is necessary for the management of these lands.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 27 North, Range 20 West, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted August 9, 2017, for Group 1177 NM. This survey was executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Region, and is necessary for the management of these lands.
The Supplemental plat representing Township 29 North, Range 11 East, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted July 13, 2017, for Group 1187 NM. This survey was executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management, Taos District Office, and is necessary for the management of these lands.
The Supplemental plat representing Township 21 North, Range 10 East, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted December 14, 2016, for Group
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 29 North, Range 23 East, of the Indian Meridian, accepted December 2, 2016, for Group 219 OK. This survey was executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Oklahoma Region, and is necessary for the management of these lands.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 24 North, Range 4 East, of the Indian Meridian, accepted July 11, 2017, for Group 235 OK. This survey was executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Oklahoma Region, and is necessary for the management of these lands.
These plats are scheduled for official filing 30 days from this notice of publication in the
If a protest against a survey, in accordance with 43 CFR 4.450-2, of any of the above plats is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written protest with the New Mexico State Director, in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, within 30 days of the publication of the
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the Notice of Protest to the State Director or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) are proposing to renew an information collection to request continued approval to collect and process citizen complaints and requests for inspection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 9, 2017.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact John Trelease by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of OSMRE; (2) is the estimate of burden accurate; (3) how might OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how might OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Lakshmi Arunachalam, Ph.D. on October 3, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain IoT devices and components thereof (IoT, the Internet of Things (IoT)—web applications displayed on a web browser). The complaint names as respondents: International Business Machines Corporation of Armonk, NY; IBM India Pvt Ltd. of India; SAP America, Inc. of Newtown Square, PA; SAP SE—Walldorf of Germany; Apple Inc. of Cupertino, CA; JPMorgan Chase and Company of New York, NY; The United States Office of the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice of Washington, DC; U.S.; United States Patent and Trademark Office of Alexandria, VA; Patent Trial and Appeal Board, United States Patent and Trademark Office of Alexandria, VA; Facebook, Inc. of Menlo Park, CA; Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, WA; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, NJ; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea; Eclipse Foundation, Inc., and its Members of Canada; Fiserv Inc. of Brookfield, WI; Fiserv India Pvt. Ltd. of India; Wells Fargo Bank of San Francisco, CA; Citigroup, Citibank of New York, NY; Citizen's Financial Group, Inc. of Providence, RI; Fulton Financial Corporation of Lancaster, PA; J.C. Penny Corporation, Inc. and J.C. Penny Company, Inc. of Plano, TX; U-Haul International, Inc. of Phoenix, AZ; Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, Avis Budget Group, and Payless Car Rental of Parsippany, NJ; Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Rent A Car, and Thrifty Car Rental of Estero, FL; Ace Rent A Car of Indianapolis, IN; Enterprise Holdings, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental, and Alamo Rent A Car of Clayton/St. Louis, MO; Presidio Bank of San Francisco, CA; Fremont Bancorporation and Fremont Bank of Fremont, CA; Heritage Bank of Commerce, and Focus Bank of San Jose, CA; and Bridge Bank of San Jose, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3263”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 7, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Anritsu Ltd., Bedfordshire, UNITED KINGDOM has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and OMA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 18, 1998, OMA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on January 26, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on September 7, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Concept Engineering GmbH, Freiburg, GERMANY; Kenji Morohasi, Yokohama, JAPAN; Lumerical Solutions, Inc., Vancouver, CANADA; SA Magillem Design Services, Paris, FRANCE; Monozukuri S.p.A., Rome, ITALY; Robust Chip Inc., Pleasanton, CA; Silicon Frontline Technology, Campbell, CA; and Spectral Design & Test Inc., Somerville, NY, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Si2 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On December 30, 1988, Si2 filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 9, 2016. A notice was published in the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Federal Bureau of Investigation, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until December 11, 2017.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Leanna Ramsey, FOIA Public Information Officer, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 170 Marcel Drive Winchester, VA 22602.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
(a) How made and addressed. You may make a request for records of the Department of Justice by writing directly to the Department component that maintains those records. You may find the Department's “Freedom of Information Act Reference Guide”—which is available electronically at the Department's World Wide Web site, and is available in paper form as well—helpful in making your request. For additional information about the FOIA, you may refer directly to the statute. If you are making a request for records about yourself, see § 16.41(d) for additional requirements. If you are making a request for records about another individual, either a written authorization signed by that individual permitting disclosure of those records to you or proof that that individual is deceased (for example, a copy of a death certificate or an obituary) will help the processing of your request. Your request should be sent to the component's FOIA office at the address listed in appendix I to part 16. In most cases, your FOIA request should be sent to a component's central FOIA office. For records held by a field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), however, you must write directly to that FBI or INS field office address, which can be found in most telephone books or by calling the component's central FOIA office. (The functions of each component are summarized in part 0 of this title and in the description of the Department and its components in the “United States Government Manual,” which is issued annually and is available in most libraries, as well as for sale from the Government Printing Office's Superintendent of Documents. This manual also can be accessed electronically at the Government Printing Office's World Wide Web site (which can be found at
(c) Agreement to pay fees. If you make a FOIA request, it shall be considered an agreement by you to pay all applicable fees charged under § 16.11, up to $25.00, unless you seek a waiver of fees. The component responsible for responding to your request ordinarily will confirm this agreement in an acknowledgement letter. When making a request, you may specify a willingness to pay a greater or lesser amount.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 189th open meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (also known as the ERISA Advisory Council) will be held on November 7-8, 2017.
The meeting will take place in C5521 Room 4, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210 on November 7, from 1 p.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. On November 8, the meeting will start at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at approximately 4:00 p.m., with a break for lunch. The morning session on November 8 will be in C5521 Room 4. The afternoon session on November 8 will take place in Room S-2508 at the same address. The purpose of the open meeting on November 7 and the morning of November 8 is for the Advisory Council members to finalize the recommendations they will present to the Secretary. At the November 8 afternoon session, the Council members will receive an update from leadership of the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) and present their recommendations.
The Council recommendations will be on the following issues: (1) Reducing the Burden and Increasing the Effectiveness of Mandated Disclosures with respect to Employment-Based Health Benefit Plans in the Private Sector, and (2) Mandated Disclosure for Retirement Plans—Enhancing Effectiveness for Participants and Sponsors. Descriptions of these topics are available on the Advisory Council page of the EBSA Web site at
Organizations or members of the public wishing to submit a written statement may do so by submitting 30 copies on or before October 31, 2017 to Larry Good, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Suite N-5623, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Statements also may be submitted as email attachments in rich text, Word, or pdf format transmitted to
Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the Advisory Council should forward their requests to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 693-8668. Oral presentations will be limited to ten minutes, time permitting, but an extended statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations should contact the Executive Secretary by October 31, 2017 at the address indicated.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
NARA is giving notice that it has submitted to OMB for approval the information collection described in this notice. We invite you to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
OMB must receive written comments at the address below on or before November 9, 2017.
Send comments to Mr. Nicholas A. Fraser, desk officer for NARA, by mail to Office of Management and Budget; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC 20503; fax to 202-395-5167; or by email to
Direct requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement to Tamee Fechhelm by phone at 301-837-1694 or by fax at 301-837-0319.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
We invite comments on: (a) Whether collecting this information is necessary for proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the information collection's burden on respondents; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information we propose to collect; (d) ways to minimize the burden on respondents of collecting the information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources people need to provide the
The National Science Board's ad hoc Committee on Nominating the NSB Class of 2018-2024, 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:
October 13, 2017 from 5:00-7:00 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Closed.
Committee Chair's welcome and remarks; introduction to scoring results; discussion of non-consensus nominees; discussion of other nominees; assignments of nominee narratives; explanation of next steps.
Point of contact for this meeting is: Brad Gutierrez,
Please refer to the National Science Board Web site
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, October 31, 2017.
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.
The one item is open to the public.
Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314-6305 or by email at
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at
Eric Weiss at (202) 314-6100 or by email at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing exemptions in response to a May 4, 2017, request, as supplemented by letter dated June 5, 2017, from Omaha Public Power District (OPPD or the licensee). The licensee requested that Fort Calhoun Station (FCS), Unit No. 1, be granted a permanent partial exemption from regulations that require retention of records for certain systems, structures, and components (SSCs) until the termination of the operating license.
The exemption was issued on October 4, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0202 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:
•
•
•
James Kim, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-4125; email:
The FCS is a single unit Combustion Engineering pressurized-water reactor located in Fort Calhoun, Nebraska. The FCS was granted Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40 under part 54 of title 10 of the
On November 13, 2016, OPPD submitted the certifications, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), of permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor (ADAMS Accession No. ML16319A254). Decommissioning activities will be carried out by OPPD, and are described in the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report submitted to the NRC on March 30, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17089A759). The SSCs that supported the generation of electric power are being prepared to enter the SAFSTOR phase. SAFSTOR, often considered “delayed DECON,” involves initially removing all fuel and radioactive wastes and liquids, maintaining the facility in a condition that allows the decay of radioactivity to reduce radiation levels at the facility, and then decontaminating and dismantling the facility.
Completion of fuel transfer from the spent fuel pool (SFP) to an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) is scheduled for 2023. Preparation for dismantlement and license termination are scheduled to begin in 2059.
By letter dated May 4, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17125A073), as supplemented by letter dated June 5, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17186A327), OPPD filed a request for NRC approval of a permanent exemption from the following recordkeeping requirements: 10 CFR part 50, appendix B, Criterion XVII; 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); and 10 CFR 50.71(c). The request was made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions.”
The licensee is requesting NRC approval of an exemption from 10 CFR part 50, appendix B, Criterion XVII, which requires certain records be retained consistent with regulatory requirements for a duration established by the licensee; 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3), which requires records to be maintained “until the termination of an operating license”; and 10 CFR 50.71(c) where records required by license condition or technical specifications (TSs) are to be retained until termination of the license.
The licensee is proposing to eliminate: (1) The records when the licensing basis requirements previously applicable to the nuclear power unit and associated structures, and components (SSCs) are no longer effective (
The licensee cites precedents for records retention exemptions granted to Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111260277); Millstone Power Station, Unit 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070110567); Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (ADAMS Accession No. ML043310155); Haddam Neck Plant (ADAMS Accession No. ML052160088); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (ADAMS Accession No. ML15344A243); and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15355A055).
Records associated with residual radiological activity and with programmatic controls necessary to support decommissioning, such as security and quality assurance, are not affected by the exemption request because they will be retained as decommissioning records until the termination of the FCS license. Also, the licensee did not request an exemption associated with any other record keeping requirements for the storage of spent fuel at its ISFSI under 10 CFR part 50 or the general license requirements of 10 CFR part 72. No exemption was requested from the decommissioning records retention requirements of 10 CFR 50.75, or any other requirements of 10 CFR part 50 applicable to decommissioning and dismantlement.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security, and (2) when special circumstances are present.
The FCS permanently ceased power operations on October 24, 2016, and subsequently removed the spent fuel from the reactor to the SFP. The nuclear reactor and SSCs associated with the nuclear steam supply system and balance of plant that had supported power generation have been drained as necessary and retired in place. The licensee's general justification for eliminating records associated with FCS SSCs that have been or will be removed from service under the NRC license, dismantled, or demolished, is that these SSCs will not, in the future, serve any FCS functions regulated by the NRC. Subsequently, these SSCs can be removed from NRC licensing basis documents, such as TSs or the FSAR, as updated, by appropriate change mechanisms (
While OPPD intends to retain the records required by FCS license, as the project transitions from current plant conditions to fully dismantled with the fuel in dry storage, the regulatory and business needs for maintenance of most of the records will be obviated. As the SSCs are removed from the licensing basis and the need for the associated records is, on a practical basis, eliminated, the licensee proposes that they be exempted from the records retention requirements for SSCs and historical activities that are no longer relevant, thereby eliminating the associated regulatory and economic burdens of creating alternative storage locations, relocating records, and retaining irrelevant records.
The SSCs supporting the continued operation of the SFP must remain operable at FCS and will be configured for operational efficiency until the fuel is removed to permanent dry storage. The records associated with the SFP SSCs must be retained through the SFP's functional life. Similar to other plant records, when the SFP is emptied of fuel, drained, and prepared for demolition, there will be no safety-significant function or other regulatory need for retaining SFP SSCs related records. The SSCs that support the SFP will be removed from licensing basis documents by appropriate change mechanisms.
In addition, the FCS site will continue to be under NRC regulation until license termination, primarily due to residual
Paragraph 50.71(d)(2) allows for the granting of specific exemptions to the retention of records required by regulations. Paragraph 50.71(d)(2) states, in part, “. . . the retention period specified in the regulations in this part for such records shall apply unless the Commission, pursuant to § 50.12 of this part, has granted a specific exemption from the record retention requirements specified in the regulations in this part.”
Based on 10 CFR 50.71(d)(2), if the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12 are satisfied, an exemption from the recordkeeping requirements in 10 CFR part 50, appendix B, Criterion XVII; 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); and 10 CFR 50.71(c), as requested by the licensee, is authorized by law.
As SSCs are prepared for SAFSTOR and eventual decommission and dismantlement, they may be removed from NRC licensing basis documents through appropriate change mechanisms, such as through the process stipulated by 10 CFR 50.59 or through a license amendment request approved by the NRC. These change processes involve either a determination by the licensee or an approval by the NRC that the affected SSC no longer serves any safety purpose regulated by the NRC. Therefore, the removal of the SSC would not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. In turn, removal of the records associated with the affected SSC would not cause any additional impact to public health and safety.
The exemptions from the requested requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix B, Criterion XVII; 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); and 10 CFR 50.71(c) are administrative in nature and will have no impact on future decommissioning activities or radiological effluents. The partial exemptions will only advance the schedule for the removal of the records. Because the content of the records pertains to SSCs that have already been removed from licensing basis documents, elimination of the records on an advanced timetable will have no reasonable potential to present any undue risk to the public health and safety.
The elimination of records associated with SSCs, which have already been removed from the NRC's licensing basis documents, is administrative in nature, and does not involve information or involve activities that could potentially impact the common defense or security. After the SSCs are removed from the NRC's licensing basis documents by appropriate change mechanisms, they are determined to no longer serve the purpose of safe operation or maintain conditions that would affect the ongoing health and safety of workers or the public. Therefore, removal of the associated records will also present no potential for impacting the safe operation of the plant or the defense or security of the workers or the public.
The exemptions requested are administrative in nature and will merely advance the current schedule for removal of the specified records. Therefore, the partial exemptions from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix B, Criterion XVII; 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); and 10 CFR 50.71(c), and for the types of records as specified above, are consistent with the common defense and security.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission will consider granting an exemption if special circumstances are present. Paragraph 50.12(a)(2) states, in part, “special circumstance are present whenever— . . . (ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.”
Appendix B of 10 CFR part 50, Criterion XVII, states, in part, “sufficient records shall be maintained to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality. . . . Records shall be identifiable and retrievable.”
Paragraph 50.59(d)(3) states, in part, “The records of changes in the facility must be maintained until the termination of an operating license under this part . . . .”
Paragraph 50.71(c), states, in part, “Records that are required by the regulations in this part or 10 CFR part 52 of this chapter, by license condition, or by TSs must be retained for the period specified by the appropriate regulation, license condition, or TS. If a retention period is not otherwise specified, these records must be retained until the Commission terminates the facility license . . . .”
In the statements of consideration for the final rulemaking, “Retention Periods for Records,” effective July 26, 1988 (53 FR 19240; May 27, 1988), as a response to public comments during the rulemaking process, the NRC states that records must be retained “. . . so they will be available for examination by the Commission in any analysis following an accident, incident, or other problem involving public health and safety . . . [and] for NRC to ensure compliance with the safety and health aspects of the nuclear environment and for the NRC to accomplish its mission to protect the public health and safety.”
The statements of consideration express that the underlying purpose of the recordkeeping rule is to ensure that, in the event of an accident, incident, or condition that could impact public health and safety, the NRC has access to information in the records that would assist in the recovery from the event and prevent similar events or conditions, which would impact health and safety. These regulations do not consider the nature of the decommissioning process, in which safety-related SSCs are retired or disabled, and subsequently removed from the NRC's licensing basis documents by appropriate change mechanisms prior to the termination of the license.
Appropriate removal of an SSC from the licensing basis requires either a determination by the licensee or an approval by the NRC of whether the SSC has the potential to cause an accident, event, or other problem, which would adversely impact the public health and safety. It follows that at a nuclear power generation plant in the decommissioning stage, SSCs that have been retired from service and removed from licensing basis documents have already been determined, through that evaluation, to no longer have an adverse impact on public health and safety.
The records subject to removal under this exemption are associated with SSCs that are important to safety during power operation and operation of the SFP, but after permanent cessation of operations are not capable of causing an event, incident, or condition that would adversely impact public health and safety, as evidenced by their appropriate removal from the licensing basis documents. If the SSCs no longer have the potential to cause these scenarios, then it is reasonable to conclude that the records associated with these SSCs would not reasonably be necessary to assist the NRC in determining compliance and noncompliance, taking
Records, which continue to serve the underlying purpose of the rule, that is, to maintain compliance and to protect public health and safety, will continue to be retained under regulations in 10 CFR part 50 and 10 CFR part 72. These retained records not subject to the exemption include those associated with programmatic controls, such as those pertaining to residual radioactivity, security, quality assurance, etc., and records associated with the ISFSI and spent fuel assemblies.
Paragraph 50.12(a)(2) states, in part, “Special circumstance are present whenever—. . . (iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted . . . .”
The retention of records required by 10 CFR part 50, appendix B, Criterion XVII, 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3), and 10 CFR 50.71(c) provides assurance that records associated with SSCs will be captured, indexed, and stored in an environmentally suitable and retrievable condition. Given the volume of records associated with the SSCs, compliance with the records retention rules results in a considerable cost to the licensee. Retention of the volume of records associated with these SSCs during the operations phase is appropriate to serve the underlying purpose of providing information to the Commission for examination in the case of an event, incident, or other problem involving the public health and safety, as discussed above. However, the cost effect of retaining operations phase records beyond the operations phase until the termination of the license was not fully considered or understood. Therefore, compliance with the rule would result in an undue cost in excess of that contemplated when the rule was adopted.
The granted exemptions apply to records that are associated with SSCs that had supported the operations phase of electricity generation and wet storage of spent fuel assemblies, and that have been, or will be, retired in place, prepared for dismantlement, and removed from licensing basis documents. Records that continue to apply to retired SSCs during the SAFSTOR and decommissioning phase, such as records associated with programmatic controls pertaining to residual radioactivity, security, quality assurance, etc., and records associated with the ISFSI and spent fuel assemblies, will continue to be maintained in an environmentally suitable and retrievable condition.
Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation in 10 CFR Chapter I is a categorical exclusion provided that (i) there is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which an exemption is sought are among those identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi).
The Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has determined that approval of the exemption request involves no significant hazards consideration because allowing the licensee exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix B, Criterion XVII; 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); and 10 CFR 50.71(c), at the permanently shutdown and defueled FCS does not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Accordingly, there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure. The exempted regulation is not associated with construction, so there is no significant construction impact. The exempted regulation does not concern the source term (
Allowing the licensee partial exemption from record retention requirements from which the exemption is sought involve recordkeeping requirements, reporting requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature.
Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) and 51.22(c)(25), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the approval of this exemption request.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, part 50, appendix B, Criterion XVII; 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); and 10 CFR 50.71(c) are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants OPPD's partial exemptions from 10 CFR part 50, appendix B, Criterion XVII; 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); and 10 CFR 50.71(c) to advance the schedule to remove records associated with SSCs that have been removed from the NRC's licensing basis documents by appropriate change mechanisms.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from September 12, 2017, to September 25, 2017. The last biweekly notice was published on September 26, 2017.
Comments must be filed by November 9, 2017. A request for a hearing must be filed by December 11, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Lynn Ronewicz, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0201, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject 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-2017-0201, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject 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 posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment, which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to each license is administrative in nature. DNC, which will be renamed Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., will remain the licensee authorized to operate and possess the units, and its functions, powers, resources and management will not change. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The ability of structures, systems, and components to perform their intended safety functions is not altered or prevented by the proposed changes, and the assumptions used in determining the radiological consequences of previously evaluated accidents are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to each license is purely administrative in nature. The functions of the licensee will not change. These changes do not involve any physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to each license is administrative in nature. DNC, which will be renamed Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., will remain the licensee authorized to operate and possess the units, and its functions will not change. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. There are no changes to setpoints at which protective actions are
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The amendment request was submitted in accordance with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-412, Revision 3, “Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW [Auxiliary Feedwater]/EFW Pump Inoperable,” with certain plant-specific deviations identified in the application. The availability of this TS improvement was published in the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) System is not an initiator of any design basis accident or event, and therefore the proposed changes do not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes to address the condition of one or two motor driven AFW/EFW trains inoperable and the turbine driven AFW/EFW train inoperable due to one steam supply inoperable do not change the response of the plant to any accidents.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not result in a change in the manner in which the AFW/EFW System provides plant protection. The AFW/EFW System will continue to supply water to the steam generators to remove decay heat and other residual heat by delivering at least the minimum required flow rate to the steam generators. There are no design changes associated with the proposed changes. The changes to the Conditions and Required Actions do not change any existing accident scenarios, nor create any new or different accident scenarios.
The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes clarify the operability requirements of the EFW system and provide appropriate remedial actions to be performed respective to potential EFW configurations or out-of-service periods, consistent with the STS [standard technical specifications]. The EFW system is not an initiator of any design basis accident or event and, therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The EFW system is used to respond to accidents previously evaluated. The proposed change affects only the actions taken when portions of the EFW system are unavailable and does not affect the design of the EFW system.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not result in a change in the manner in which the EFW system provides plant protection. The EFW system will continue to supply water to the Steam Generators (SGs) to remove decay heat and other residual heat by delivering at least the minimum required flow rate to the SGs. There are no design changes associated with the proposed changes. The changes to the related TS Actions do not change any existing accident scenarios, nor create any new or different accident scenarios.
The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in continued plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the License Condition 2.C.(5) requirements for inspection of Core Spray spargers, piping and associated components does not alter the use of the inspection methods and criteria used to determine the capability of the Core Spray System to perform its intended safety function that have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. The proposed change is in accordance with an NRC approved inspection and flaw evaluation guideline and as such, maintains required safety margins. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor does it alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not require any physical change to any plant SSCs nor does it require any change in systems or plant operations. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences.
Incorporating NRG-approved inspection frequency and criteria for Core Spray spargers, piping and associated components has no physical effect on plant equipment and therefore, no impact on the course of plant transients.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed incorporation of NRC-approved inspection frequency and criteria for Core Spray spargers, piping and associated components is a change based upon previously approved documents and does not involve changes to the plant hardware or its operating characteristics. As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced. There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the method by which any plant systems perform a safety function. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change.
The proposed change does not introduce any new accident precursors, nor does it involve any physical plant alterations or changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, and through the parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis accidents. The use of inspection frequency and criteria for Core Spray spargers, piping and associated components in accordance with NRC-approved methods, guidelines, and criteria provides adequate assurance that the Core Spray System can perform its safety function as required by the plant-specific [loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA)]-analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not decrease the margin of safety. The proposed change in inspection criteria maintains the current safety margin, which protects the fuel
The proposed change to License Condition 2.C.(5) is consistent with NRC-approved methods, guidelines, and criteria and provides adequate assurance that the Core Spray System can perform its safety function as required by the plant-specific LOCA-analysis. No setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are altered by the proposed change. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety limits are determined. This change is consistent with plant design and does not change the Technical Specification operability requirements; thus, previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The technical specification (TS) limiting conditions for operation and required actions associated with the proposed changes to the TS are not initiators of any accidents previously evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed change does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant structure, system, or component (SSC). The capability of any operable TS-required SSC to perform its specified safety function is not impacted by the proposed change. As a result, the outcomes of accidents previously evaluated are unaffected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design, physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC.
No physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal mechanisms are introduced. Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design, physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC. No physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal mechanisms are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The ability of any operable SSC to perform its designated safety function is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes do not alter any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or method of operating the plant. The changes do not adversely affect plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. With the proposed change, each DC electrical trains remains fully capable of performing its safety function.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, and based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to relocate the consolidated EOF [emergency operations facility] within Birmingham, Alabama, requires no change to the required staff response time for supplementing onsite personnel in response to a radiological emergency. The relocated EOF is along the same major roadway and response personnel will be able to access the facility, using for the most part, the same path they currently use to travel to the corporate office. The license amendment does not request a change to the response time and the facility will be functional within the same timeframe as for the existing EOF. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOF will continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. The proposed change has no effect on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator or precursors and does not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components [(SSCs)]. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of the emergency response organization to perform its intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change only concerns implementation of the standard emergency plan by relocating the Corporate EOF a short distance (1.3 miles) from its current location. The new location will not change the time the facility will be functional to provide emergency response. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOF will continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. The proposed change will not change the design function or operation of SSCs. The change does not impact the accident analysis for any of the SNC nuclear plants. The change does not involve a physical alteration of any of the plants, a change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed change does not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in safety analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change only impacts the implementation of the emergency plan by relocating the Corporate EOF a short distance (1.3 miles) within Birmingham, Alabama. The change does not the affect staff response time or the time it takes to make the facility operational to perform its intended emergency response functions. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOF will continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The [reactor coolant system (RCS)] leakage detection systems provide early warning of abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) or the main steam lines inside containment so that actions can be taken to prevent pipe breaks. The change proposed to limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.4.9 adds limited periods during which the containment sump level and/or containment atmosphere F18 particulate monitor are not required to be operable—during and for 2 hours after use of the containment purge flow path, and during in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) gutter drain isolation valve closure and for 2 hours after reopening the valves—and proposes a compensatory increase in the frequency of the RCS inventory balance during these periods. Containment purge, containment venting and IRWST gutter drain isolation valve closure are evolutions associated with normal operating conditions. The probability of a leakage flaw growing to a size that would cause pipe failure during and for 2 hours after IRWST gutter drain isolation valve inservice testing or a containment venting evolution is low because the durations of the test and venting evolution are short. The probability of a leakage flaw growing to a size that would cause pipe failure during and for 2 hours after a containment purge operation is low because containment purge operations at power are infrequent, and because containment purge in preparation for refueling is conducted concurrent with operations that will put the plant in operating modes for which LCO 3.4.9 is not applicable (MODES 5 and 6).
The RCS inventory balance method of leak detection is quantitative and remains available when the plant has been operating at steady state for at least 12 hours and the leakage instrumentation is not required to be operable. In addition, the leak detection instruments will remain functional and have sensitivities such that the instrumentation will still be useful as a leak detection aid to operators during a containment purge operation or IRWST gutter drain isolation valve inservice testing. The RCS leakage detection instrumentation is not credited with consequence mitigation during any accident previously evaluated.
Existing Required Action A.1 is intended to determine whether the remaining required containment sump level instrument is functioning properly when one of the required instruments is inoperable. Removal of Required Action A.1 does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because a new Surveillance Requirement is proposed which will provide more appropriate monitoring to assess operability of the remaining required containment sump level channel.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The failure of the leak detection systems to detect small leaks in the reactor coolant pressure boundary could lead to large undetected leaks and possibly a loss of coolant accident. Loss of coolant accidents for a spectrum of pipe sizes and locations are already postulated in [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)] Chapter 15, Section 15.6. Breaks in the main steam lines inside containment are also analyzed in UFSAR Chapter 15, Section 15.1. Unidentified leakage detection and operator action in response to unidentified leakage are not postulated for any of the design basis accident analyses described in UFSAR Chapter 15.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not reduce RCS leakage detection instrument availability with respect to IRWST gutter drain isolation valve closure or reactor power level. The changes to compensate for instrument sensitivities during containment purge
Removing existing Required Action A.1 and adding surveillance of the containment sump level channels does not significantly decrease the margin of safety. The prescribed Action did not provide definitive information about instrument performance or operability. The new Surveillance Requirement proposed will provide a history of the operational performance of the containment sump level instrumentation that will better assist in the determination of instrument operability.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds operability requirements, required actions, instrument settings, and surveillance requirements for the negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function associated with the 4160V emergency buses. This system provides an additional level of undervoltage protection for Class 1E electrical equipment. The proposed change will promote reliability of the negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection circuitry in the performance of its design function of detecting and mitigating an open phase condition (OPC) on a required off-site primary power source and initiating transfer to the onsite emergency power source.
The new negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function will further ensure the normally operating Class 1E motors/equipment, which are powered from the Class 1E buses, are appropriately isolated from a primary off-site power source experiencing a consequential OPC and will not be damaged. The addition of the negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function will continue to allow the existing undervoltage protection circuitry to function as originally designed (
Specific models and analyses were performed and demonstrated that the proposed negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function, with the specified operability requirements, required actions, instrument settings, and surveillance requirements, will ensure the Class 1E system will be isolated from the off-site power source should a consequential OPC occur. The Class 1E motors will be subsequently sequenced back onto the Class 1E buses powered by the EDGs and will therefore not be damaged in the event of a consequential OPC under both accident and non-accident conditions. Therefore, the Class 1E loads will be available to perform their design basis functions should a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) occur concurrent with a loss-of-off-site power (LOOP) following an OPC. The loading sequence (
The addition of the new negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function will have no impact on accident initiators or precursors and does not alter the accident analysis assumptions.
Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the requirements for the availability of the 4160V emergency buses during accident conditions. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is consistent with those assumptions. The addition of the negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function TS enhances the ability of plant operators to identify and respond to an OPC in an off-site, primary power source, thereby ensuring the station electric distribution system will perform its intended safety function as designed. The proposed TS change will promote negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function performance reliability in a manner similar to the existing loss of voltage and degraded voltage protective circuitry.
The proposed change does not result in the creation of any new accident precursors; does not result in changes to any existing accident scenarios, and does not introduce any operational changes or mechanisms that would create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. A failure mode and effects review was completed for postulated failure mechanisms of the new negative sequence voltage protection function and concluded that the addition of this protection function would not affect the existing loss of voltage and degraded voltage protection schemes; would not affect the number of occurrences of degraded voltage conditions that would cause the actuation of the existing Loss of Voltage, Degraded
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change enhances the ability of the plant to identify and isolate (an) open phase(s) in an off-site, primary power source and transfer the power source for the 4160V emergency buses to the onsite emergency power system. The proposed change does not affect the dose analysis acceptance criteria, does not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the analyses or design basis, and does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
With the addition of the new negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function, the capability of Class 1E equipment to perform its safety function will be further assured and the equipment will remain capable of mitigating the consequences of previously analyzed accidents while maintaining the existing margin to safety currently assumed in the accident analyses.
Therefore, the proposed TS change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation, and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 18, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 21, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 21, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 11, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 15, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 19, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 15, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Combined license application; revised notice of hearing.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will convene an evidentiary session to receive testimony and exhibits in the uncontested portion of this proceeding regarding the application of Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) for combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two additional units (Units 6 and 7) at the Turkey Point site in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This mandatory hearing will concern safety and environmental matters relating to the requested COLs.
The hearing will be held on December 12, 2017, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. For the schedule for submitting pre-filed documents and deadlines affecting Interested Government Participants, see Section V of the
Please refer to Docket ID 52-040 and 52-041 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:
•
•
•
Denise McGovern, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-0681; email:
The Commission hereby gives notice that, pursuant to Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), it will convene an evidentiary session to receive testimony and exhibits in the uncontested portion of this proceeding regarding FPL's June 30, 2009, application for COLs under part 52 of title 10 of the
The Commission will conduct this hearing beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on December 12, 2017, at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The hearing on these issues will continue on subsequent days, if necessary.
The Commission is the presiding officer for this proceeding.
The matter at issue in this proceeding is whether the review of the application by the Commission's staff has been adequate to support the findings found in 10 CFR 52.97 and 10 CFR 51.107. Those findings that must be made for each COL are as follows:
The Commission will determine whether (1) the applicable standards and requirements of the Act and the
The Commission will (1) determine whether the requirements of Sections 102(2)(A), (C), and (E) of NEPA and the applicable regulations in 10 CFR part 51 have been met; (2) independently consider the final balance among conflicting factors contained in the record of the proceeding with a view to determining the appropriate action to be taken; (3) determine, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, whether the combined licenses should be issued, denied, or appropriately conditioned to protect environmental values; and (4) determine whether the NEPA review conducted by the NRC staff has been adequate.
No later than November 7, 2017, unless the Commission directs otherwise, the NRC staff and the applicant shall submit a list of its anticipated witnesses for the hearing.
No later than November 7, 2017, unless the Commission directs otherwise, the applicant shall submit its pre-filed written testimony. The NRC staff submitted its testimony on December 2, 2016.
The Commission issued written questions on September 1, 2017. Responses to these questions are due on November 7, 2017, unless the Commission directs otherwise.
No later than November 6, 2017, any interested State, local government body, or affected, Federally recognized Indian Tribe may file with the Commission a statement of any issues or questions to which the State, local government body, or Indian Tribe wishes the Commission to give particular attention as part of the uncontested hearing process. Such statement may be accompanied by any supporting documentation that the State, local government body, or Indian Tribe sees fit to provide. Any statements and supporting documentation (if any) received by the Commission using the agency's E-filing system
States, local governments, or Indian Tribes should be aware that this evidentiary hearing is separate and distinct from the NRC's contested hearing process. Issues within the scope of contentions that have been admitted or contested issues pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board or the Commission in a contested proceeding for a COL application are outside the scope of the uncontested proceeding for that COL application. In addition, although States, local governments, or Indian Tribes participating as described above may take any position they wish, or no position at all, with respect to issues regarding the COL application or the NRC staff's associated environmental review that do fall within the scope of the uncontested proceeding (
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices will hold a meeting on October 18, 2017, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss the State-Of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analysis (SOARCA) Project, Sequoyah Integrated Deterministic and Uncertainty Analyses. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Hossein Nourbakhsh (Telephone 301-415-5622 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 3, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 3, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 3, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Notice is hereby given that the Railroad Retirement Board will hold a meeting on October 25, 2017, 10:00 a.m. at the Board's meeting room on the 8th floor of its headquarters building, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611. The agenda for this meeting follows:
(1) Executive Committee Reports
The person to contact for more information is Martha P. Rico, Secretary to the Board, Phone No. 312-751-4920.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to add new optional functionality to Minimum Quantity Orders by amending paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9, Orders and Modifiers. The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (e)(3) of Exchange Rule 11.9 to make certain clarifying, non-substantive changes. The proposed amendments are identical changes its affiliate, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), recently filed with and were published by the Commission for immediate effectiveness.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to add new optional functionality to Minimum Quantity Orders by amending paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9, Orders and Modifiers. The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (e)(3) of Exchange Rule 11.9 to make certain clarifying, non-substantive changes. The proposed amendments are identical to changes recently filed by Exchange's affiliate EDGX and were published by the Commission for immediate effectiveness.
A Minimum Quantity Order enables a User
First, the Exchange proposes to add new optional functionality that would enhance the utility of Minimum Quantity Orders by amending paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9. In sum, the proposal would permit an incoming Minimum Quantity Order to forego executions where multiple resting orders could otherwise be aggregated to satisfy the order's minimum quantity.
The Exchange has observed that some market participants avoid sending large Minimum Quantity Orders to the Exchange out of concern that such orders may interact with small orders entered by professional traders, possibly adversely impacting the execution of their larger order. Institutional orders are often much larger in size than the average order in the marketplace. To facilitate the liquidation or acquisition of a large position, market participants tend to submit multiple orders into the market that may only represent a fraction of the overall institutional position to be executed. Various strategies used by institutional market participants to execute large orders are intended to limit price movement of the security at issue. Executing in small sizes, even if in the aggregate it meets the order's minimum quantity, may impact the market for that security such that the additional orders the market participant has yet to enter into the market may be more costly to execute. If an institution is able to execute in larger sizes, the contra-party to the execution is less likely to be a participant that reacts to short term changes in the stock price, and as such, the price impact to the stock may be less acute when larger individual executions are obtained.
To attract larger Minimum Quantity Orders, the Exchange proposes to add new optional functionality that would enhance the utility of Minimum Quantity Orders. In sum, the proposal would permit a User to elect that its incoming Minimum Quantity Order execute solely against one or more resting individual orders, each of which must satisfy the order's minimum quantity condition. In such case, the order would forego executions where multiple resting orders could otherwise be aggregated to satisfy the order's minimum quantity, but do not individually satisfy the minimum quantity condition.
The proposed new optional functionality will not allow aggregation of smaller executions to satisfy the minimum quantity of an incoming Minimum Quantity Order. Using the same scenario as above, but with the proposed new functionality and a minimum quantity requirement of 400 shares selected by the User, the Minimum Quantity Order would not execute against the two sell orders because the 300 share order with time priority at the top of the BYX Book is less than the incoming order's 400 share Minimum Execution Quantity [sic]. The new functionality will cause the Minimum Quantity Order to be cancelled or posted to the BYX Book, non-displayed, in accordance with the characteristics of the underlying order type
As amended, the description of a Minimum Quantity Order under paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9 would set forth the default behavior of Minimum Quantity Orders that execute upon entry against a single order or multiple aggregated orders simultaneously. Amended Rule 11.9(c)(5) would set forth the proposed optional functionality where a User may alternatively specify that the incoming order's minimum quantity condition be satisfied by each order resting on the BYX Book that would execute against the order with the minimum quantity condition. If there are such orders, but there are also orders that do not satisfy the minimum quantity condition, the incoming Minimum Quantity Order will execute against orders resting on the BYX Book in accordance with Rule 11.12, Priority of Orders, until it reaches an order that does not satisfy the minimum quantity condition at which point it would be posted to the BYX Book or cancelled in accordance with the terms of the order. If, upon entry, there are no orders that satisfy the minimum quantity condition resting on the BYX Book, the order will either be posted to the BYX Book or cancelled in accordance with the terms of the order.
The Exchange also proposes to re-price incoming Minimum Quantity Orders where that order may cross an order posted on the BYX Book. Specifically, where there is insufficient size to satisfy an incoming order's minimum quantity condition and that incoming order, if posted at its limit price, would cross an order(s) resting on the BYX Book, the order with the minimum quantity condition will be re-priced to and ranked at the locking price. For example, an order to buy at $11.00 with a minimum quantity condition of 500 shares is entered and there is an order resting on the BYX Book to sell 200 shares at $10.99. The resting order to sell does not contain sufficient size to satisfy the incoming order's minimum quantity condition of 500 shares. The price of the incoming buy order, if posted to the BYX Book, would cross the price of the resting sell order. In such case, to avoid an internally crossed book, the System will re-price the incoming buy order to $10.99, the locking price. This behavior is similar to how the Exchange currently reprices non-displayed orders that cross the Protected Quotation of an external market.
Second, the Exchange proposes to add language to the description of Minimum Quantity Orders to further describe their current operation on BZX and to harmonize the rule with that of its affiliate, EDGX, as described in EDGX Rule 11.6(h).
The Exchange, therefore, proposes to amend the description of the Minimum Execution Quantity [sic] instruction to clarify its operation upon order entry and when the order is posted to the BYX Book. The Exchange proposes to clarify that upon entry, and by default, an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity [sic] will execute against a single order or multiple aggregated orders simultaneously. A User may also specify that the order only against [sic] orders that individually satisfy the order's minimum quantity condition, as proposed herein. Once posted to the BYX Book,
The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 11.9 to make certain clarifying, non-substantive
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed rule change would remove impediments to and promote just and equitable principles of trade because it would provide Users with optional functionality that enhances the use of the Minimum Execution Quantity [sic] instruction. These proposed amendments are identical to changes recently proposed by EDGX that were published by the Commission for immediate effectiveness.
As discussed above, the functionality proposed herein would enable Users to avoid transacting with smaller orders that they believe ultimately increases the cost of the transaction. Because the Exchange does not have this functionality, market participants, such as large institutions that transact a large number of orders on behalf of retail investors, have avoided sending large orders to the Exchange to avoid potentially more expensive transactions.
The Exchange also believes that re-pricing incoming Minimum Quantity Orders where they may cross an order posted on the BYX Book promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it enables the Exchange to avoid an internally crossed book. The proposed re-pricing is identical to how EDGX reprices orders with a Minimum Quantity instruction
In addition, the additional proposed changes to the description of Minimum Quantity Orders would better align Exchange rules and system functionality with identical functionality and rules on its affiliate, EDGX. Consistent descriptions of identical functionality between the Exchange and EDGX will reduce complexity and avoid potential investor confusion. The proposed rule changes do not propose to implement new or unique functionality that has not been previously filed with the Commission or is not available on EDGX. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule text is based on applicable BYX rules; the proposed language of the Exchange's Rules differs only to extent necessary to conform to existing Exchange rule text or to account for details or descriptions included in the Exchange's Rules.
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to paragraph (e)(3) of Rule
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. On the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes competition because it will enable the Exchange to offer functionality substantially similar to that offered by Nasdaq and IEX.
No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to remove obsolete rule text from the Schedule of Fees at Chapter VII, Section C, entitled “Options Regulatory Fee.”
The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed deletions are enclosed in [brackets].
[$0.0039 per contract side. Effective August 1, 2017, t]
The Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) is assessed by ISE to each ISE Member for options transactions cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the customer range where: (1) the execution occurs on ISE or (2) the execution occurs on another exchange and is cleared by an ISE Member. The ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of ISE from (1) ISE clearing members for all customer transactions they clear or (2) non-members for all customer transactions they clear that were executed on ISE. ISE uses reports from OCC when assessing and collecting ORF. The Exchange will notify Members via an Options Trader Alert of any change in the amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change.
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 recently amended its Options Regulatory Fee or “ORF” located in the Schedule of Fees at Chapter VII, Section C.
This rule change is non-substantive and merely serves to update the rule text.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange proposes to remove outdated references to ORF prior to August 1, 2017. The Exchange believes this rule change will provide clarity and ease of reference when Members review the ORF rule.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is a non-substantive amendment to remove obsolete rule text.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) index-based series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (“Funds of Funds”) to acquire shares of the Funds; (f) certain Funds (“Feeder Funds”) to create and redeem Creation Units in-kind in a master-feeder structure; and (g) certain Funds to issue Shares in less than Creation Unit size to investors participating in a distribution reinvestment program.
EntrepreneurShares Series Trust (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, Capital Impact Advisors, LLC (the “Initial Adviser”), a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Rafferty Capital Markets, LLC (the “Distributor”), a Delaware limited liability company and broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).
The application was filed on July 21, 2017. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this notice.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 27, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Applicants: Trust and Initial Adviser, 175 Federal Street, Suite 875, Boston, MA 02110; Distributor, 1010 Franklin Ave., Garden City, NY 11530.
Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6817, or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as index-based exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will hold investment positions selected to correspond closely to the performance of an Underlying Index. In the case of Self-Indexing Funds, an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act (“Affiliated Person”), or an affiliated person of an Affiliated Person (“Second-Tier Affiliate”), of the Trust or a Fund, of the Adviser, of any sub-adviser to or promoter of a Fund, or of the Distributor will compile, create, sponsor or maintain the Underlying Index.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis, or issued in less than Creation Unit size to investors participating in a distribution reinvestment program. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units (other than pursuant to a dividend reinvestment program).
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
6. With respect to Funds that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind and that are based on certain Underlying Indexes that include foreign securities, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons, or Second-Tier Affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those investment positions currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
9. Applicants also request relief to permit a Feeder Fund to acquire shares of another registered investment company managed by the Adviser having substantially the same investment objectives as the Feeder Fund (“Master Fund”) beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(A) and permit the Master Fund, and any principal underwriter for the Master Fund, to sell shares of the Master Fund to the Feeder Fund beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(B).
10. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 11, 2017.
Auditorium, Room L-002.
This meeting will be open to the public.
The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments based on the recommendations in the staff's Report on Modernization and Simplification of Regulation S-K, as required by Section 72003 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, and to modernize and simplify certain disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K and related rules and forms. The Commission also will consider certain parallel amendments to investment company and investment adviser rules and forms.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On August 7, 2017, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (“GEMX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
On June 21, 2016, the Commission approved a proposed rule change relating to a corporate transaction in which Nasdaq, Inc. would become the ultimate parent of GEMX (the “Nasdaq Acquisition”), Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”), and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX,” and together with GEMX and ISE, the “ISE Exchanges”).
The Exchange intends to effect a merger with a newly-formed Delaware limited liability company (“Merger”) under Nasdaq, Inc. that would result in GEMX as the surviving entity with new corporate governance documents. In connection with that Merger, the Exchange proposes various changes to its corporate governance documents and rules (“Rules”).
The Exchange represents that the proposed changes are designed to align the Exchange's corporate governance framework with the existing structure of the Nasdaq Exchanges, particularly as it relates to the board and committee structure, nomination and election processes, and related governance practices.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
GEMX is currently structured as a Delaware limited liability company (“Delaware LLC”)
Pursuant to the proposed rule change, GEMX will be merged with a newly formed Delaware LLC, whereby GEMX will be the surviving entity, governed by the New Governing Documents. ISE Holdings will continue to be the direct owner of GEMX and will be defined as the “Company Member” or “Sole LLC Member” in the New LLC Agreement and New By-Laws.
The Commission believes that the proposed restrictions on ISE Holdings' assignment of its ownership interest in GEMX, taken together with restrictions on voting and ownership limitations in the governing documents of GEMX's Upstream Owners that were previously approved by the Commission,
The Exchange proposes to replace certain provisions pertaining to governance of the Exchange with related provisions that are based on provisions currently in the Nasdaq LLC Agreement and Nasdaq By-Laws.
Under the New Governing Documents, and consistent with the Current LLC Agreement,
ISE Holdings, as the Sole LLC Member, may determine at any time, in its sole and absolute discretion, the number of Directors to constitute the Board of Directors.
As discussed in more detail below,
An “Industry member” will be a member of any committee appointed by the Board that is associated with a broker-dealer as defined in the New By-Laws, Article I(n). A “Non-Industry member” will be defined as a member of any committee appointed by the Board who is (i) a Public member; (ii) an officer or employee of an issuer of securities listed on the Exchange; or (iii) any other individual who would not be an Industry member.
The Exchange states that the new Member Nominating Committee is responsible for: (i) The nomination for election of Member Representative Directors to the Board and (ii) the nomination for appointment of Member Representative members to the committees requiring such members.
“Election Date” will be defined as a date selected by the Board on an annual basis, on which Exchange Members may vote with respect to Member Representative Directors in the event of a Contested Election.
Under the Exchange's Current Governing Documents, at least 30% of the directors on the Board are officers, directors, or partners of Exchange members (currently, six directors), and are elected by a plurality of the holders of Exchange Rights (the “Industry Directors,” or, as referred to herein, “Exchange Directors”), of which at least one must be elected by holders of PMM Rights, one must be elected by holders of CMM Rights, and one must be elected by holders of EAM Rights; provided, however, that the number of each type of Exchange Director will always be equal to one another.
The Exchange notes that the Commission has previously found the Nasdaq LLC Agreement's (1) 20% Member Representative Director requirement, and (2) election process, provide fair representation of Nasdaq members, consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Commission believes that the proposed composition of the Exchange's Board satisfies the requirements in
Section 6(b)(3) of the Act requires that “the rules of the exchange assure a fair representation of its members in the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs and provide that one or more directors shall be representative of issuers and investors and not be associated with a member of the exchange, broker, or dealer.”
In its filing, the Exchange states that, when it was acquired by Nasdaq, Inc., there were a number of harmonizing changes to its Board that resulted in a complete overlap of directors on the Boards of GEMX and the Nasdaq Exchanges (the “Post-Acquisition Board”).
The Commission believes the Exchange's proposal to allow the 2017 Board to continue serving until the 2018 Board would be elected pursuant to the process in the New Governing Documents is consistent with the Act, and in particular Section 6(b)(3) of the Act.
“Exchange Rights” currently means, collectively, PMM Rights, CMM Rights, and EAM Rights, which are the trading and other rights associated with the Exchange's three classes of membership.
Pursuant to the Exchange's Current Constitution, a “Public Director” means a non-industry representative who has no material relationship with a broker or dealer or any affiliate of a broker or dealer or the Exchange or any affiliate of the Exchange.
The term “non-industry representative” means any person who would not be considered an “industry representative,” as well as (i) a person affiliated with a broker or dealer that operates solely to assist the securities-related activities of the business of non-member affiliates, or (ii) an employee of an entity that is affiliated with a broker or dealer that does not account for a material portion of the revenues of the consolidated entity, and who is primarily engaged in the business of the non-member entity.
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.
Pursuant to the New By-Laws, the Exchange may establish committees composed solely of Directors. Specifically, the Exchange may establish an Executive Committee and a Finance Committee, and shall establish a Regulatory Oversight Committee (“ROC”).
The Exchange states that the proposed provisions relating to the standing committees are substantially similar to the provisions in Section 9(g) of the Nasdaq LLC Agreement with respect to standing committees.
The Board may also designate additional committees consisting of one or more Directors or other persons.
The Exchange proposes that the Executive Committee be an optional committee, to be appointed only if deemed necessary by the Board.
The Board would retain oversight of the financial operations of the Exchange instead of delegating these functions to a standing committee, but would have the option to appoint a Finance Committee at the Board's discretion.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate its current Finance and Audit Committee and to have the committee's functions performed by Nasdaq, Inc.'s Audit Committee (“Nasdaq Audit Committee”), which is composed of at least three directors of Nasdaq, Inc., all of whom must satisfy the standards for independence set forth in Section 10A(m) of the Act
The current Finance and Audit Committee must be composed of at least three (3) and not more than five (5) directors, all of whom must be non-industry representatives and must be “financially literate” as determined by the Board.
The Exchange will also have a Regulatory Oversight Committee (“ROC”) under the New Governing Documents, which will have broad authority to oversee the adequacy and effectiveness of the Exchange's regulatory and self-regulatory responsibilities.
The Exchange also states that regulatory oversight functions formerly performed by the Finance and Audit Committee may be assumed by the ROC, and that like the ROCs of the Nasdaq Exchanges, the GEMX ROC, because of its broad authority to oversee the adequacy and effectiveness of the Exchange's self-regulatory responsibilities, will be able to maintain oversight over controls in tandem with the Nasdaq Audit Committee's overall oversight responsibilities.
Pursuant to the New By-Laws, the Exchange will also have a Chief Regulatory Officer (“CRO”), as it does currently.
In addition to the CRO, pursuant to the New LLC Agreement, the Exchange's officers will include: A Chief Executive Officer, a President, Vice Presidents, a Chief Regulatory Officer, a Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, a Treasurer, and an Assistant Treasurer.
The ROC will assess the Exchange's regulatory performance, assist the Board in reviewing the regulatory plan and the overall effectiveness of the Exchange's regulatory functions, review the Exchange's regulatory budget and inquire into the adequacy of resources available in the budget for regulatory activities, and be informed about the compensation and promotion or termination of the CRO.
The Exchange also proposes that the Internal Audit Department of Nasdaq, Inc. (“Nasdaq Internal Audit Department”) would report to the Board on all Exchange-related internal audit matters and direct such reports to the new ROC.
The Exchange also proposes to eliminate its current Compensation Committee and its Corporate Governance Committee.
As discussed above, the Nominating Committee and Member Nominating Committee will have responsibility for, among other things, nominating candidates for election to the Board. On an annual basis, the members of these committees will nominate candidates for the succeeding year's respective committees to be elected by ISE Holdings.
The Commission notes that under the New By-Laws, the Member Nominating Committee shall nominate candidates for each Member Representative Director position to be elected by Exchange Members or the Sole LLC Member, and for appointment by the Board for each vacant or new position on any committee that is to be filled with a Member Representative member.
Finally, the Quality of Markets Committee (“QMC”) will have the following functions: (i) To provide advice and guidance to the Board on issues relating to the fairness, integrity, efficiency, and competitiveness of the information, order handling, and execution mechanisms of the Exchange from the perspective of investors, both individual and institutional, retail firms, market making firms, and other market participants; and (ii) to advise the Board with respect to national market system plans and linkages between the facilities of the Exchange and other markets.
The Exchange also states that the function of Member Representative members on committees is to provide members a voice in the administration of the Exchange's affairs on certain committees that are responsible for providing advice on any matters pertaining to the Exchange's self-regulatory function or relating to its market structure.
The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed committees, which are similar to the committees maintained by other exchanges,
Certain provisions in GEMX's Current Governing Documents, and those of its Upstream Owners, are designed to help maintain the independence of the regulatory functions of the Exchange.
• The Exchange Board will be required, when evaluating any proposal, to take into account all factors that the Board deems relevant, including, without limitation, (1) the potential impact on: The integrity, continuity, and stability of the national securities exchange operated by the Exchange and the other operations of the Exchange; the ability to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; and investors and the public, and (2) whether such proposal 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 the perfection of the mechanisms for a free and open market and a national market system.
• All books and records of GEMX reflecting confidential information pertaining to the self-regulatory function of the Exchange (including but not limited to disciplinary matters, trading data, trading practices, and audit information) shall be retained in confidence by GEMX and its officers, directors, employees and agents; shall not be made available to persons other than to those officers, directors, employees, and agents of GEMX that have a reasonable need to know; and will not be used for any non-regulatory purpose.
The Exchange is not proposing that GEMX, and the Board on behalf of GEMX, shall not have the right to keep confidential from ISE Holdings, as the Sole LLC Member, any information that the Board would otherwise be permitted to keep confidential from the Sole LLC Member pursuant to Section 18-305(c) of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, 6 Del. C. § 18-101. Additionally, the Exchange is not proposing that ISE Holdings, as the Sole LLC Member and the Exchange's authorized representative, shall have an explicit right to examine the Exchange's books, records, and documents during normal business hours.
The Commission believes that the proposed provisions relating to the books and records of the Exchange are designed to maintain the independence of GEMX's self-regulatory function, and are consistent with the Act. The Commission notes that these provisions are substantially similar to those the Commission has previously found to be consistent with the Act in the context of the corporate governance structures of other exchanges.
The Commission also notes that the governing documents of GEMX's Upstream Owners provide that all books and records of GEMX reflecting confidential information pertaining to the self-regulatory function of the Exchange will be subject to confidentiality restrictions.
• The Exchange proposes that, as is currently the case, the books and records of GEMX must be maintained in the United States
The Exchange states that certain provisions in Section 16 of the New LLC Agreement are substantially similar to provisions in Section 16 of the Nasdaq LLC Agreement.
GEMX also states that the Nasdaq Exchanges will separately file proposed rule changes to harmonize the books and records provisions in their respective governing documents with the language in Section 16 of the New LLC Agreement.
• Under the New LLC Agreement and New By-Laws, any amendments to those documents will not become effective until filed with, or filed with and approved by, the Commission, as required under Section 19 of the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder.
The Commission notes that, although the Current Constitution and Current LLC Agreement do not include a similar, explicit requirement regarding the filing of amendments pursuant to Section 19 of the Act, the Current Constitution and Current LLC Agreement, as rules of the Exchange, are nonetheless subject to the requirements of Section 19 of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
Additionally, pursuant to the New By-Laws, either the Sole LLC Member or the vote of a majority of the whole Board may enact amendments to the By-Laws, and the Board may adopt emergency by-laws.
• Additionally, as is currently the case pursuant to the Current LLC Agreement,
Consistent with Section 3.3 of the Current LLC Agreement, Schedule A of the New LLC Agreement defines “Regulatory Funds” as fees, fines, or penalties derived from the regulatory operations of the Exchange. However, Regulatory Funds do not include revenues derived from listing fees, market data revenues, transaction revenues, or any other aspect of the commercial operations of the Exchange even if a portion of such revenues are used to pay costs associated with the regulatory operations of the Exchange.
GEMX states that the Nasdaq Exchanges will separately file proposed rule changes to harmonize the distribution provisions in their respective governing documents with the language in Section 15 of the New LLC Agreement.
The Commission believes that the provisions discussed in this section, which are designed to help ensure the independence of the Exchange's regulatory function and facilitate the ability of the Exchange to carry out its responsibility and operate in a manner consistent with the Act, are appropriate and consistent with the requirements of the Act, particularly with Section 6(b)(1), which requires, in part, an exchange to be so organized and have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act.
The Commission finds that proposed process regarding amendments to the New Governing Documents is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, because it reflects the obligation of the Board to
The Commission also finds that the prohibition on the use of regulatory fines, fees, or penalties to fund dividends is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, because it will further the Exchange's ability to effectively comply with its statutory obligations and is designed to ensure that the regulatory authority of the Exchange is not improperly used.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Rules to reflect the changes to its constituent documents through the adoption of the New Governing Documents to replace the Current Governing Documents. The Exchange states that it is amending its Rules to: (i) Clarify any Rules that cross-reference the Current Governing Documents in the rule text, since those documents are being replaced by the New Governing Documents;
Specifically, the Exchange proposed changes to its Rules to, among other things:
• Relocate the concept of CMM Rights from the Current LLC Agreement
• Relocate to New Rule 100(a)(13) the definition of “Competitive Market Maker,”
The term “Member” means an organization that has been approved to exercise trading rights associated with Exchange Rights.
• Relocate the concept of EAM Rights to New Rule 100(a)(16), which will state that the term “EAM Rights” means the non-transferable rights held by an Electronic Access Member.
• Relocate to New Rule 100(a)(17) the definition of “Electronic Access Member,”
• Relocate the definitions for “Exchange Transaction,” “good standing,” and “System” from the Current Constitution to the Rules,
• Relocate the concept of PMM Rights from Article VI of the Current LLC Agreement to New Rule 100(a)(41), which will state that the term “PMM Rights” means the non-transferable rights held by a Primary Market Maker.
• Relocate to New Rule 100(a)(42) the definition for “Primary Market Maker”
The Commission believes that the proposed changes to GEMX's Rules are consistent with the Act and, in particular Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to remove obsolete rule text from Chapter XV, Section 5, entitled “NASDAQ Options Regulatory Fee.”
The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed deletions are enclosed in [brackets].
NOM Participants will be assessed an Options Regulatory Fee of [$0.0021 per contract side.
Effective August 1, 2017, the ORF shall be ]$0.0027 per contract side.
The Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) is assessed by NOM to each NOM Participant for options transactions cleared by OCC in the Customer range where: (1) The execution occurs on NOM or (2) the execution occurs on another exchange and is cleared by a NOM Participant. The ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of NOM from (1) NOM clearing members for all Customer transactions they clear or (2) non-members for all Customer transactions they clear that were executed on NOM. NOM uses reports from OCC when assessing and collecting ORF. The Exchange will notify Participants via an Options Trader Alert of any change in the amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change.
NOM Participants who do not transact an equities business on the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC in a calendar year will receive a refund of the fees specified in Rule 7003(b) upon written notification to the Exchange along with documentation evidencing that no equities business was conducted on The NASDAQ Stock Market for that calendar year. The Exchange will accept refund requests up until sixty (60) days after the end of the calendar year.
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 recently amended its Options Regulatory Fee or “ORF” at Chapter XV, Section 5.
This rule change is non-substantive and merely serves to update the rule text.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange proposes to remove outdated references to ORF prior to August 1, 2017. The Exchange believes this rule change will provide clarity and ease of reference when Participants review the ORF rule.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is a non-substantive amendment to remove obsolete rule text.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to remove obsolete rule text from Chapter XV, Section 5, entitled “BX Options Regulatory Fee.”
The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed deletions are enclosed in [brackets].
BX Participants will be assessed an Options Regulatory Fee of [$0.0004 per contract side.
Effective August 1, 2017, the ORF shall be ]$0.0005 per contract side.
The Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) is assessed by BX to each BX Participant for options transactions cleared by OCC in the Customer range where: (1) The execution occurs on BX or (2) the execution occurs on another exchange and is cleared by a BX Participant. The ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of BX from (1) BX clearing members for all Customer transactions they clear or (2) non-members for all Customer transactions they clear that were executed on BX. BX uses reports from OCC when assessing and collecting ORF. The Exchange will notify Participants via an Options Trader Alert of any change in the amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change.
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 recently amended its Options Regulatory Fee or “ORF” at Chapter XV, Section 5.
This rule change is non-substantive and merely serves to update the rule text.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange proposes to remove outdated references to ORF prior to August 1, 2017. The Exchange believes this rule change will provide clarity and ease of reference when Participants review the ORF rule.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is a non-substantive amendment to remove obsolete rule text.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to add new optional functionality to Minimum Quantity Orders by amending paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9, Orders and Modifiers. The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (e)(3) of Exchange Rule 11.9 to make certain clarifying, non-substantive changes. The proposed amendments are identical changes its affiliate, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), recently filed with and were published by the Commission for immediate effectiveness.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to add new optional functionality to Minimum Quantity Orders by amending paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9, Orders and Modifiers. The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (e)(3) of Exchange Rule 11.9 to make certain clarifying, non-substantive changes. The proposed amendments are identical to changes recently filed by Exchange's affiliate EDGX and were published by the Commission for immediate effectiveness.
A Minimum Quantity Order enables a User
First, the Exchange proposes to add new optional functionality that would enhance the utility of Minimum Quantity Orders by amending paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9. In sum, the proposal would permit an incoming Minimum Quantity Order to forego executions where multiple resting orders could otherwise be aggregated to satisfy the order's minimum quantity.
The Exchange has observed that some market participants avoid sending large Minimum Quantity Orders to the Exchange out of concern that such orders may interact with small orders entered by professional traders, possibly adversely impacting the execution of their larger order. Institutional orders are often much larger in size than the average order in the marketplace. To facilitate the liquidation or acquisition of a large position, market participants tend to submit multiple orders into the market that may only represent a fraction of the overall institutional position to be executed. Various strategies used by institutional market participants to execute large orders are intended to limit price movement of the security at issue. Executing in small sizes, even if in the aggregate it meets the order's minimum quantity, may impact the market for that security such that the additional orders the market participant has yet to enter into the market may be more costly to execute. If an institution is able to execute in larger sizes, the contra-party to the execution is less likely to be a participant that reacts to short term changes in the stock price, and as such, the price impact to the stock may be less acute when larger individual executions are obtained.
To attract larger Minimum Quantity Orders, the Exchange proposes to add new optional functionality that would enhance the utility of Minimum Quantity Orders. In sum, the proposal would permit a User to elect that its incoming Minimum Quantity Order execute solely against one or more resting individual orders, each of which must satisfy the order's minimum quantity condition. In such case, the order would forego executions where multiple resting orders could otherwise be aggregated to satisfy the order's minimum quantity, but do not individually satisfy the minimum quantity condition.
The proposed new optional functionality will not allow aggregation of smaller executions to satisfy the minimum quantity of an incoming Minimum Quantity Order. Using the same scenario as above, but with the proposed new functionality and a minimum quantity requirement of 400 shares selected by the User, the Minimum Quantity Order would not execute against the two sell orders because the 300 share order with time priority at the top of the BZX Book is less than the incoming order's 400 share Minimum Execution Quantity [sic]. The new functionality will cause the Minimum Quantity Order to be cancelled or posted to the BZX Book, non-displayed, in accordance with the characteristics of the underlying order type
As amended, the description of a Minimum Quantity Order under paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9 would set forth the default behavior of Minimum Quantity Orders that execute upon entry against a single order or multiple aggregated orders simultaneously. Amended Rule 11.9(c)(5) would set forth the proposed optional functionality where a User may alternatively specify that the incoming order's minimum quantity condition be satisfied by each order resting on the BZX Book that would execute against the order with the minimum quantity condition. If there are such orders, but there are also orders that do not satisfy the minimum quantity condition, the incoming Minimum Quantity Order will execute against orders resting on the BZX Book in accordance with Rule 11.12, Priority of Orders, until it reaches an order that does not satisfy the minimum quantity condition at which point it would be posted to the BZX Book or cancelled in accordance with the terms of the order. If, upon entry, there are no orders that satisfy the minimum quantity condition resting on the BZX Book, the order will either be posted to the BZX Book or cancelled in accordance with the terms of the order.
The Exchange also proposes to re-price incoming Minimum Quantity Orders where that order may cross an order posted on the BZX Book. Specifically, where there is insufficient size to satisfy an incoming order's minimum quantity condition and that incoming order, if posted at its limit price, would cross an order(s) resting on the BZX Book, the order with the minimum quantity condition will be re-priced to and ranked at the locking price. For example, an order to buy at $11.00 with a minimum quantity condition of 500 shares is entered and there is an order resting on the BZX Book to sell 200 shares at $10.99. The resting order to sell does not contain sufficient size to satisfy the incoming order's minimum quantity condition of 500 shares. The price of the incoming buy order, if posted to the BZX Book, would cross the price of the resting sell order. In such case, to avoid an internally crossed book, the System will re-price the incoming buy order to $10.99, the locking price. This behavior is similar to how the Exchange currently reprices non-displayed orders that cross the Protected Quotation of an external market.
Second, the Exchange proposes to add language to the description of Minimum Quantity Orders to further describe their current operation on BZX and to harmonize the rule with that of its affiliate, EDGX, as described in EDGX Rule 11.6(h).
The Exchange, therefore, proposes to amend the description of the Minimum Execution Quantity [sic] instruction to clarify its operation upon order entry and when the order is posted to the BZX Book. The Exchange proposes to clarify that upon entry, and by default, an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity [sic] will execute against a single order or multiple aggregated orders simultaneously. A User may also specify that the order only against [sic] orders that individually satisfy the order's minimum quantity condition, as proposed herein. Once posted to the BZX Book,
The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 11.9 to make certain clarifying, non-substantive changes. The proposed change would harmonize the description of Replace messages under Exchange Rule 11.9(e)(3) with EDGX Rule 11.10(e)(3). Exchange Rule 11.9(e)(3) currently states that other than changing a limit order to a market order, only the price, stop price, the sell long or sell short indicator, Max Floor
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed rule change would remove impediments to and promote just and equitable principles of trade because it would provide Users with optional functionality that enhances the use of the Minimum Execution Quantity [sic] instruction. These proposed amendments are identical to changes recently proposed by EDGX that were published by the Commission for immediate effectiveness.
As discussed above, the functionality proposed herein would enable Users to avoid transacting with smaller orders that they believe ultimately increases the cost of the transaction. Because the Exchange does not have this functionality, market participants, such as large institutions that transact a large number of orders on behalf of retail investors, have avoided sending large orders to the Exchange to avoid potentially more expensive transactions.
The Exchange also believes that re-pricing incoming Minimum Quantity Orders where they may cross an order posted on the BZX Book promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it enables the Exchange to avoid an internally crossed book. The proposed re-pricing is identical to how EDGX reprices orders with a Minimum Quantity instruction
In addition, the additional proposed changes to the description of Minimum Quantity Orders would better align Exchange rules and system functionality with identical functionality and rules on its affiliate, EDGX. Consistent descriptions of identical functionality between the Exchange and EDGX will reduce complexity and avoid potential investor confusion. The proposed rule changes do not propose to implement new or unique functionality that has not been previously filed with the Commission or is not available on EDGX. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule text is based on applicable BZX rules; the proposed language of the Exchange's Rules differs only to extent necessary to conform to existing Exchange rule text or to account for details or descriptions included in the Exchange's Rules.
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 11.9 are also consistent with the Act in that they will provide additional specificity to the rules. In particular, the amendments to paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 11.10 [sic] will ensure the rule uses terminology consistent with the description of Replace messages and their impact on an order's priority under Exchange Rule 11.12(a)(4). Also, the Exchange notes that the proposed change would harmonize the description of Replace messages under
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. On the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes competition because it will enable the Exchange to offer functionality substantially similar to that offered by Nasdaq and IEX.
No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) 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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4338-DR), dated 09/28/2017.
Issued on 09/28/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/28/2017, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 153388 and for economic injury is 153390.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (MREIDL), dated 10/01/2017.
Issued on 10/01/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of Public Law 106-50, the Veterans entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, and the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2008, this notice establishes the application filing period for the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (MREIDL).
Effective 10/01/2017, small businesses employing military reservists may apply for economic injury disaster loans if those employees are called up to active duty during a period of military conflict or have received notice of an expected call-up, and those employees are essential to the success of the small business daily operations.
The purpose of the MREIDL program is to provide funds to an eligible small business to meet its ordinary and necessary operating expenses that it could have met, but is unable to meet, because an essential employee was called-up or expects to be called-up to active duty in his or her role as a military reservist. These loans are intended only to provide the amount of working capital needed by a small business to pay its necessary obligations as they mature until operations return to normal after the essential employee is released from active duty. For information/applications contact 1-800-659-2955 or visit
Applications for the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program may be filed at the above address.
The Interest Rate for eligible small businesses is 4.000.
The number assigned is 15337 0.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the U.S. Virgin Islands, (FEMA-4340-DR), dated 09/20/2017.
Issued on 09/23/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the U.S. Virgin Islands, dated 09/20/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4339-DR), dated 09/20/2017.
Issued on 10/02/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, dated 09/20/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the PEPFAR Scientific Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) will meet on Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 1800 G St. NW., Suite 10300, Washington, DC 20006. The meeting will last from 8:30 a.m. until approximately 5:00 p.m. and is open to the public.
The meeting will be hosted by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and Health Diplomacy, and led by Ambassador Deborah Birx, who leads implementation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and the Board Chair, Dr. Carlos del Rio.
The Board serves the Global AIDS Coordinator in a solely advisory capacity concerning scientific, implementation, and policy issues that may influence the priorities and direction of PEPFAR evaluation and research, national and international epidemic control strategies and implementation activities, and the role of PEPFAR leadership in global response to the HIV epidemic. Topics for the meeting will include an overview of the Epidemic Control Team structure, the HIV prevention cascade, and new business and other updates.
The public may attend this meeting as seating capacity allows. Admittance to the meeting will be by means of a pre-arranged clearance list. In order to be placed on the list and, if applicable, to request reasonable accommodation, please register online via the following:
For further information about the meeting, please contact Dr. Andrew Forsyth, Designated Federal Officer for the Board, Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and Health Diplomacy at
Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Seventy First RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Seventy First RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary.
The meeting will be held October 26-27, 2017 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: National Institute for Aviation Research, 4000 E. 17th St. N., Wichita, KS 67208. Registration is require for this plenary.
Rebecca Morrison at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Seventy First RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
1. Chairmen's Opening Remarks, Introductions.
2. Approval of Summary From the Sixty-Ninth Meeting—(RTCA Paper No. XX-17/SC135-XXX).
3. Approval of Summary From the Seventieth Meeting—(RTCA Paper No. XX-17/SC135-XXX).
4. Review Working Group Summaries.
5. Review Ground Based Task Group Summary.
6. Review Schedule.
7. New/Unfinished Business.
8. Establish Date for Next SC-135 Meeting.
9. Closing.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. Registration is required to attend this event. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Fifth DAC meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Fifth DAC Meeting.
The meeting will be held on November 8, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. PST.
The meeting will be held at the Amazon Meeting Center, 2031 7th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98121.
Al Secen at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given of the Fifth DAC Meeting. The DAC is a component of RTCA, which is a Federal Advisory Committee. The agenda will likely include, but may not be limited to, the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before October 30, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0752 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
John Barcas (202) 267-7023, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Thirty First RTCA SC-217 Aeronautical Databases Plenary Joint with EUROCAE WG-44.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Thirty First RTCA SC-217 Aeronautical Databases Plenary Joint with EUROCAE WG-44.
The meeting will be held November 29-30, 2017 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. and December 1, 2017 from 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: Honeywell Aerospace, 21111 N. 19th Ave., Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Rebecca Morrison at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Thirty First RTCA SC-217 Aeronautical Databases Plenary Joint with EUROCAE WG-44. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. Registration is required for attendance. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Seventeenth RTCA SC-209 Plenary Session Joint with EUROCAE WG49.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Seventeenth RTCA SC-209 Plenary Session Joint with EUROCAE WG49.
The meeting will be held October 26, 2017 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: Boeing—Longacres 25-01 Building, 1301 SW 16th Street, Renton, WA 98055.
Albert Secen at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Seventeenth RTCA SC-209 Plenary Session Joint with EUROCAE WG49. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Ninety Ninth RTCA SC-159 Navigation Equipment Using the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Ninety Ninth RTCA SC-159 Plenary. SC-159 is a subcommittee to RTCA.
October 27, 2017. 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Rebecca Morrison at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Ninety Ninth RTCA SC-159 Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the “
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) meeting on transport airplane and engine (TAE) issues.
This notice announces a public meeting of the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Subcommittee to discuss TAE issues.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 1, 2017, starting at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Standard Time. Arrange for oral presentations by October 25, 2017.
The meeting will take place at 1601 Lind Ave SW., Renton, WA 98057. Participation is open to the public, but will be limited to the availability of teleconference lines.
Thuy H. Cooper, Office of Rulemaking, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-4715, Fax (202) 267-5075, or email at
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. app. III), notice is given of an ARAC subcommittee meeting to be held on November 1, 2017.
The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
Participation is open to the public, but will be limited to the availability of teleconference lines.
To participate, please contact the person listed in
The public must make arrangements by October 25, 2017, to present oral or written statements at the meeting. Written statements may be presented to the Subcommittee by providing a copy to the person listed in the
If you need assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for the meeting or meeting documents, please contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Twelfth RTCA SC-233 Addressing Human Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Twelfth RTCA SC-233 Addressing Human Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics Plenary.
The meeting will be held October 23, 2017 10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036 to be hosted as a virtual meeting.
Rebecca Morrison at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Twelfth RTCA SC-233 Addressing Human Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for the procurement of a John Deere 640R Standard Farm Loader for recreational trail maintenance by the St. Marys Area Snowmobile Association (through the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources) because the equipment is not available to be produced using 100 percent domestic steel or iron.
The effective date of the waiver is October 11, 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
The FHWA's Buy America policy in 23 CFR 635.410 requires a domestic manufacturing process for any steel or iron products (including protective coatings) that are permanently incorporated in a Federal-aid construction project. The regulation also provides for a waiver of the Buy America requirements when the application would be inconsistent with the public interest or when satisfactory quality domestic steel and iron products are not sufficiently available. This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for a John Deere 640R Standard Farm Loader for recreational trail maintenance by the St. Marys Area Snowmobile Association in Pennsylvania because this equipment is not available to be produced by domestic manufacturers using 100 percent domestic steel or iron.
Consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31), FHWA published a notice on its Web site,
The St. Marys Area Snowmobile Association, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Pennsylvania DOT, contractors, and subcontractors involved in the procurement of John Deere 640R are reminded of the need to comply with the Cargo Preference Act in 46 CFR part 38, if applicable.
In accordance with the provisions of section 117 of the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-244, 122 Stat. 1572), FHWA is providing this notice as its finding that a waiver of Buy America requirements is appropriate. 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)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
This document announces a decision by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that certain model year (MY) 2010 Lamborghini Murcielago passenger cars (PCs) that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles originally manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the U.S. certified
This decision became effective on October 3, 2017.
George Stevens, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5308).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified as required under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc., of Santa Ana, CA (G&K) (Registered Importer #RI-90-007), petitioned NHTSA to decide whether MY 2010 Lamborghini Murcielago PCs are eligible for importation into the United States. NHTSA published a notice of the petition on May 2, 2017 (82 FR 20532) to afford an opportunity for public comment. No comments were received in response to this petition. The reader is referred to the receipt notice for a thorough description of the petition.
NHTSA has reviewed the petition and has concluded that the vehicles covered by the petition are substantially similar to MY 2010 Lamborghini Murcielago PCs and are capable of being readily altered to comply with all applicable FMVSS.
NHTSA has also concluded that each RI who imports and modifies one of these vehicles must include in the statement of conformity and associated documents (“conformity package”) it submits to the NHTSA under 49 CFR part 592.6(d) explicit proof to confirm that the vehicle was, where applicable, originally manufactured to conform to, or was successfully altered to conform to, FMVSS No. 101
In addition to the information specified above, each conformity package must also include evidence showing how the RI verified that the changes it made in loading or reprograming vehicle software to achieve conformity with each separate FMVSS, did not also cause the vehicle to fall out of compliance with any other applicable FMVSS.
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that MY 2010 Lamborghini Murcielago passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable FMVSS, are substantially similar to MY 2010 Lamborghini Murcielago passenger cars manufactured for importation into and/or sale in the United States, and certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and are capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
The importer of a vehicle admissible under any final decision must indicate on the form HS-7 accompanying entry the appropriate vehicle eligibility number indicating that the vehicle is eligible for entry. VSP-595 is the vehicle eligibility number assigned to vehicles admissible under this notice of final decision.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Forest River, Inc. (Forest River), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2008-2016 Glaval, 2012-2016 Starcraft, and 2014-2016 StarTrans buses do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217,
The closing date for comments on the petition is November 9, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All documents submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in the
Forest River, Inc. (Forest River), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2008-2016 Glaval, 2012-2016 Starcraft, and 2014-2016 StarTrans buses do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217,
This notice of receipt of Forest River's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
Affected are approximately 476 MY 2014-2016 StarTrans Bus Senator 2, Senator HD, Candidate 2, President, and PS 2 model buses manufactured between May 16, 2014 and April 6, 2016; approximately 7,716 MY 2012-2016 Starcraft Bus Xpress, Starquest, Starlite, Allstar, Allstar XL, MVP, Ultrastar, and XLT model buses manufactured between January 1, 2012 and April 6, 2016; and approximately 1,860 MY 2008-2016 Forest River, Inc. Glaval Bus Apollo, Concorde II, Entourage, Legacy, Primetime, Sport, Titan, Titan II and Titan II Low Floor model buses manufactured between August 1, 2008 and March 6, 2016.
Forest River explains that the noncompliance results from the misplacement of the emergency egress labels on the emergency exit doors of the subject buses. Specifically, the emergency egress labels on the affected buses were centered on the window and are located within 25 centimeters of each of the release mechanisms, and not within 16 centimeters, as required by paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 217. The labels are approximately 11 centimeters (or 4 inches) from where they are required to be on the exit doors.
Paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 217 requires in pertinent part:
S5.5.1
Forest River described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Forest River submitted the following reasoning:
(a) Since the promulgation of the FMVSS No. 217 original final rule, the primary purpose in requiring the emergency exit markings to be located within a set distance from the release mechanism has been to ensure that they are: (1) Located near the point of release and (2) are visible to passengers.
(b) All of the emergency egress windows are located on the rear wall of the affected buses. The markings are readable and the instructions on how to operate the release mechanism are concise and understandable as currently installed. The release mechanism is painted red, and contrasts with the black window frame and hardware. Centered in the window, the emergency exit marking is unobstructed by any other part of the window or the vehicle and should be readily apparent to passengers. Consequently, the location of the emergency egress designation labels in relation to the release mechanism do not compromise safety with regard to a passenger's ability to identify an emergency egress location or easily operate the release mechanism.
(c) The affected vehicles are transit buses, generally operated by private companies and would typically have trained drivers operating the vehicles and present to assist passengers exiting the vehicle in the event of an emergency. With a trained professional driver present, an emergency exit marking that is located approximately 4 inches further than allowed from the release mechanism is unlikely to have any tangible impact on passenger safety.
(d) The agency has previously granted petitions for inconsequential noncompliance under FMVSS No. 217 for conditions with the potential for a more direct and serious impact on safety.
(e) Forest River is not aware of any complaints, warranty claims, accidents, injuries, or other field incidents related to the emergency egress markings not meeting the requirements of the standard. Forest River has corrected the
Forest River's complete petition and all supporting documents are available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at:
In summation, Forest River believes that the described noncompliance in the subject buses is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to exempt Forest River from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and remedying the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject buses that Forest River no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant buses under their control after Forest River notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
United States Institute of Peace.
Friday, October 20, 2017 (10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.).
2301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.
Open Session—Portions may be closed pursuant to Subsection (c) of Section 552(b) of Title 5, United States Code, as provided in subsection 1706(h)(3) of the United States Institute of Peace Act, Public Law 98-525.
October 20, 2017 Board Meeting: Chairman's Report; Vice Chairman's Report; President's Report; Approval of Minutes of the One Hundred and Sixty Second Meeting (April 21, 2017) and the One Hundred and Sixty Third Meeting (July 21, 2017) of the Board of Directors; Reports from USIP Board Committees; Ukraine/Russia Working Group Report; and Israel/Palestine Program Report.
William B. Taylor, Executive Vice President:
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 9, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
38 U.S.C. 3485.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the VA Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Advisory Committee will meet on November 7, 2017, at 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Sonny Montgomery Conference Room 230, Washington, DC,
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officers, on matters relating to improving and enhancing VA's efforts to identify, prevent, and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse across VA in order to improve the integrity of VA's payments and the efficiency of its programs and activities.
The agenda will include briefings from the Deputy Secretary of VA, the Advisory Committee Management Office, the Office of General Counsel, presentations on VA's programs, and an overview of committee objectives, committee business, and activities.
Time will be allocated for receiving comment from the public in the afternoon. A sign-up sheet for 5-minute comments will be available at the meeting. For interested parties who cannot attend in person, the dial-in number is (800) 767-1750, access code 030905#.
Because the meeting is being held in a government building, a photo I.D. must be presented as part of the clearance process. Therefore, any person attending should allow an additional 30 minutes before the meeting begins. Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Tamika Barrier, Designated Federal Officer, at (757) 254-8630.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Veterans' Rural Health Advisory Committee will meet on November 1-2, 2017. The meeting will be held at 333 John Carlyle St., 4th Floor Conference Room, in Alexandria, VA 22314 on November 1-2; both meeting sessions will begin at 8:30 a.m. (EST) each day and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. (EST). The meetings are open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on rural health care issues affecting Veterans. The Committee examines Programs and policies that impact the delivery of VA rural health care to Veterans and discusses ways to improve and enhance VA access to rural health care services for Veterans.
The agenda will include updates from Department leadership, the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Policy and Services, Director Office of Rural Health and Committee Chairman, as well as presentations on general health care access.
Public comments will be received at 4:30 p.m. on November 1, 2017. Interested parties should contact Ms. Judy Bowie, via email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials will be held on October 31-November 1, 2017. The meeting sessions will take place at the Jefferson Barracks Medical Center, 1 Jefferson Barracks Drive, Building 56, St. Louis, MO 63125. Sessions are open to the public, except when the Committee is conducting tours of VA facilities, participating in off-site events, and participating in workgroup sessions. Tours of VA facilities are closed, to protect from disclosure Veterans' information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of national cemeteries, soldiers' lots and plots, the selection of new national cemetery sites, the erection of appropriate memorials, and the adequacy of Federal burial benefits. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
On the morning of Tuesday, October 31st, the Committee will convene with an open session at the Jefferson Barracks Medical Center, 1 Jefferson Barracks Drive, Building 56, St. Louis, MO 63125, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The agenda will include briefings on NCA Modernization efforts and Committee recommendations. In the afternoon, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. the Committee will reconvene a closed session, as it tours the NCA National Training Center co-located at the meeting site and Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery at 2900 Sheridan Road, St. Louis, MO 63125.
On November 1st, the meeting will convene an open session at the Jefferson Barracks Medical Center, 1 Jefferson Barracks Drive, Building 56, St. Louis, MO 63125, from 8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. The agenda will include a continuation of briefings on Committee Recommendations and a briefing on the Veterans Legacy Program.
Time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the public each day. Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting should contact Ms. Christine Hamilton, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 461-5680. The Committee will also accept written comments. Comments may be transmitted electronically to the Committee at
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before December 11, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OM functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OM estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veteran's Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before December 11, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
38 U.S.C. 1521, 1541, 1542.
VBA uses VA Form 21P-0784 to gather income information that is necessary to determine eligibility for Pension benefits. Entitlement to pension cannot be determined without complete information about a claimant's family income and net worth. Claimants residing in the Philippines have different types of income than claimants residing in the United States, and this form better captures those types of income than other VA Pension forms.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veteran Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before December 11, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
38 U.S.C. 1521(h) and 1541(g) provide the authority for the exclusion of children's income based on unavailability or hardship. VA Form 21P-0571, Application for Exclusion of Children's Income, is being transferred from Compensation Service to Pension and Fiduciary Service, due to changes in business lines.
VA Form 21P-0571 is used for the sole purpose of collecting the information needed to determine whether children's income is available to the beneficiary, and if it would cause hardship to consider their income.
By direction of the Secretary.
| 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 |