| Page Range | 47083-47362 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 47361 - German-American Day, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 47228 - Termination of the Designation of Sudan for Temporary Protected Status | |
| 82 FR 47162 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 82 FR 47252 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 47210 - Meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality | |
| 82 FR 47264 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 47265 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 47245 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Alkali Creek Reservoir Project, Big Horn County, Wyoming | |
| 82 FR 47247 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 47248 - Notice of Cancellation of Withdrawal Application and Withdrawal Proposal and Notice of Termination of Environmental Impact Statement for the Sagebrush Focal Area Withdrawal in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming | |
| 82 FR 47247 - Notice of Public Meetings for the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 47248 - Notice of Intent To Amend Land Use Plans Regarding Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation and Prepare Associated Environmental Impact Statements or Environmental Assessments | |
| 82 FR 47244 - Notice of Application for a Recordable Disclaimer of Interest: Harris County, Texas | |
| 82 FR 47204 - National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology | |
| 82 FR 47171 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License | |
| 82 FR 47205 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 47236 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Housing Agencies Service Areas Solicitation of Comments | |
| 82 FR 47241 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) Appeals; PHAS Unaudited Financial Statement Submission Extensions; Assisted and Insured Housing Property Inspection Technical Reviews and Database Adjustments | |
| 82 FR 47240 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Jobs Plus Pilot Program | |
| 82 FR 47238 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Section 184 and 184-A Loan Guarantee Program | |
| 82 FR 47239 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Restrictions on Assistance to Noncitizens | |
| 82 FR 47204 - Human Studies Review Board; Notification of Public Meetings | |
| 82 FR 47201 - Final 2018 Olmsted Power Marketing Plan and Call for Applications | |
| 82 FR 47191 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 47251 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
| 82 FR 47287 - Notice Regarding Positive Actions by the Government of Sudan | |
| 82 FR 47277 - Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract Program NAICS Code Updates | |
| 82 FR 47112 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA | |
| 82 FR 47254 - Senior Executive Service-Performance Review Board | |
| 82 FR 47321 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8924 | |
| 82 FR 47321 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee | |
| 82 FR 47192 - Extension of Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 82 FR 47192 - Fusion Energy Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 47290 - Notice of Rescission of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the I-94 East-West Corridor Project in the City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin | |
| 82 FR 47291 - Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement for the Chesapeake Bay Crossing Study, Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, Calvert County, Cecil County, Dorchester County, Harford County, Kent County, Queen Anne's County, St. Mary's County, Somerset County, and Talbot County, Maryland | |
| 82 FR 47243 - Receipt of Application for Incidental Take Permit; Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander and the California Red-Legged Frog; Curletti Farming Project, Santa Barbara County, California | |
| 82 FR 47243 - Receipt of Application for Incidental Take Permit; Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander; Campbell Home Ranch, Santa Barbara County, California | |
| 82 FR 47288 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Airlines for America | |
| 82 FR 47276 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 47264 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 47256 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 47162 - Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2017-2018 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for King Mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico Western Zone | |
| 82 FR 47105 - Department of the Treasury Employee Rules of Conduct | |
| 82 FR 47107 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in Programs and Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance From the Department of the Treasury | |
| 82 FR 47083 - Removal of Office of Thrift Supervision Regulations | |
| 82 FR 47235 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant | |
| 82 FR 47292 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 82 FR 47301 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 47311 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 82 FR 47309 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 47308 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 47294 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing | |
| 82 FR 47312 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 47300 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing | |
| 82 FR 47296 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 47306 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA) | |
| 82 FR 47234 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection; Request for Fee Waiver; Request for Fee Exemption | |
| 82 FR 47083 - Practices and Procedures | |
| 82 FR 47176 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting (Webinar) | |
| 82 FR 47174 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47175 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47190 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 82 FR 47212 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 47228 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Petition To Remove Conditions on Residence | |
| 82 FR 47297 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 47207 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 47299 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 82 FR 47288 - Notice Suspending Implementation of the Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Philadelphia International Airport Capacity Enhancement Program | |
| 82 FR 47314 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 82 FR 47289 - Request for Emergency Processing of Collection of Information by the Office of Management and Budget; Emergency Clearance To Revise Information Collection 2120-0768, Part 107 Authorizations and Waivers | |
| 82 FR 47172 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments in Part; 2016 | |
| 82 FR 47207 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 47210 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 47199 - Dominion Energy Services, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 82 FR 47200 - Colonial Pipeline Company; Notice of Technical Conference | |
| 82 FR 47194 - New York Power Authority v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and PJM Transmission Owners in Their Collective Capacity; Notice of Complaint | |
| 82 FR 47199 - System Energy Resources, Inc.; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
| 82 FR 47193 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 47195 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 47113 - Safety Zone; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Socastee, SC | |
| 82 FR 47316 - Notice of Application for Approval To Discontinue or Modify a Railroad Signal System | |
| 82 FR 47316 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 82 FR 47317 - Notice of Application for Approval To Discontinue or Modify a Railroad Signal System | |
| 82 FR 47253 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47172 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Alaska Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 47164 - Large Financial Institution Rating System; Regulations K and LL | |
| 82 FR 47206 - Proposed Guidance on Supervisory Expectations for Boards of Directors | |
| 82 FR 47252 - Notice of Appointments of Individuals To Serve as Members of Performance Review Boards; Corrections | |
| 82 FR 47176 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Pile Driving Activities for the Restoration of Pier 62, Seattle Waterfront, Elliot Bay | |
| 82 FR 47168 - Data Enhancements and Reporting Requirements for Flats | |
| 82 FR 47115 - Privacy of Information | |
| 82 FR 47319 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 82 FR 47320 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 82 FR 47317 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 82 FR 47274 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Review Charges for Communications Filed With or Submitted to FINRA | |
| 82 FR 47213 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request Title: Bureau of Primary Health Care Uniform Data System, OMB No. 0915-0193-Revision | |
| 82 FR 47171 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 47250 - Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors, Components Thereof, and Products and Vehicles Containing Same II; Institution of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 47198 - Dynegy Lee II, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
| 82 FR 47198 - Cole Rhoten; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene | |
| 82 FR 47195 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 47196 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 47197 - Massachusetts Water Resource Authority; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 82 FR 47192 - Applied Energy LLC; Notice of Waiver Request | |
| 82 FR 47194 - Applied Energy LLC; Notice of Waiver Request | |
| 82 FR 47197 - Ram Valley LLC; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene | |
| 82 FR 47227 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47227 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47226 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47227 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47226 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 47325 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Application for Individualized Tutorial Assistance | |
| 82 FR 47325 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Application for United States Flag for Burial Purposes | |
| 82 FR 47324 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Application for Work Study Allowance; Student Work-Study Agreement (Advance Payment); Extended Student Work-Study Agreement; Student Work-Study Agreement | |
| 82 FR 47215 - 60-Day Notice Template for Request for Generic Clearance for the Collection of Routine Customer Feedback on HHS Communications | |
| 82 FR 47322 - Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts | |
| 82 FR 47200 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 47210 - Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47165 - Proposed Revisions to Wine Labeling and Recordkeeping Requirements; Comment Period Reopening | |
| 82 FR 47257 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Relating to Options on Index Credit Default Swaps | |
| 82 FR 47277 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Relating to Options on Index Credit Default Swaps | |
| 82 FR 47269 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Listing Requirements Related to Special Purpose Acquisition Companies Listing Standards To Reduce Round Lot Holders on Nasdaq Capital Market for Initial Listing From 300 to 150 and Eliminate Public Holders for Continued Listing From 300 to Zero, Require $5 Million in Net Tangible Assets for Initial and Continued Listing, and Impose a Deadline To Demonstrate Compliance With Initial Listing Requirements on All Nasdaq Markets Within 30 Days Following Each Business Combination | |
| 82 FR 47265 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the CBOE S&P 500® Dividend Aristocrats® Target Income Index ETF Under the ETF Series Solutions Trust, Under Rule 14.11(c)(3), Index Fund Shares | |
| 82 FR 47254 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 1009 To Modify the Criteria for Listing an Option on an Underlying Covered Security | |
| 82 FR 47272 - Whitford Asset Management, LLC, et al. | |
| 82 FR 47164 - Proposed Addition of New Grape Variety Names for American Wines; Comment Period Reopening | |
| 82 FR 47167 - Wine Treating Materials and Related Regulations; Comment Period Reopening | |
| 82 FR 47169 - Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5 | |
| 82 FR 47147 - Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5 | |
| 82 FR 47154 - Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
| 82 FR 47170 - Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Oxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
| 82 FR 47122 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Permitting and General Rule Revisions | |
| 82 FR 47249 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 82 FR 47328 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills | |
| 82 FR 47225 - Preventing Alcohol-Related Deaths (PARD) Through Social Detoxification; Extension of Due Dates | |
| 82 FR 47225 - Behavioral Health Integration Initiative (BH2I); Extension of Due Dates | |
| 82 FR 47207 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 47206 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 47155 - Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions | |
| 82 FR 47253 - Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 47103 - Establishment of Class E Airspace, Big Timber, MT | |
| 82 FR 47216 - Division of Behavioral Health; Youth Regional Treatment Center Aftercare Pilot Project | |
| 82 FR 47104 - Establishment of Class E Airspace and Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Kaunakakai, HI | |
| 82 FR 47097 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Sunriver, OR | |
| 82 FR 47098 - Airspace Designations; Incorporation by Reference Amendments | |
| 82 FR 47149 - Approval and Promulgation; State of Utah; Salt Lake County and Utah County Nonattainment Area Coarse Particulate Matter State Implementation Plan Revisions To Control Measures for Point Sources | |
| 82 FR 47145 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Ambient Ozone Monitoring Requirements | |
| 82 FR 47262 - USCF Fund Advisors, LLC, et al. | |
| 82 FR 47257 - OppenheimerFunds, Inc., et al. | |
| 82 FR 47211 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request; Proposed Projects: Renewal of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Performance Data Form (LPDF) | |
| 82 FR 47161 - Technology Transitions, USTelecom Petition for Declaratory Ruling That Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Are Non-Dominant in the Provision of Switched Access Services, Policies and Rules Governing Retirement of Copper Loops by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers | |
| 82 FR 47094 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 47091 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 47084 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes |
Agricultural Research Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Merit Systems Protection Board.
Final rule.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) is amending its rules of practice and procedure in this part to reflect the relocation of its Western Regional Office.
Jennifer Everling, Acting Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20419; phone: (202) 653-7200; fax: (202) 653-7130; or email:
On October 13, 2017, MSPB will relocate its Western Regional Office from 201 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA, to 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA. Appendix II of this part is amended to show the new address. The facsimile number is changing to (510) 273-7136. The geographical areas served by the Western Regional Office are unchanged. The Board is publishing this as a final rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1204(h).
Administrative practice and procedure.
Accordingly, the Board amends 5 CFR part 1201 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 1204, 1305, and 7701, and 38 U.S.C. 4331, unless otherwise noted.
Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury is removing chapter V of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which contains regulations of the former Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). The OTS, a Bureau of the Department of the Treasury, was abolished effective October 19, 2011, and its rulemaking authority and operative rules were transferred to other agencies pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Because those agencies have issued regulations that supersede chapter V, chapter V is no longer necessary.
Effective October 11, 2018.
Heidi Cohen, Senior Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, (202) 622-1142, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for General Law, Ethics & Regulation, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220.
The OTS, a Bureau of the Department of the Treasury, was abolished by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act or Act)
Chapter V of title 12 of the CFR sets out the OTS regulations. Several parts of chapter V relate to the administrative functions of the OTS. Because the OTS was abolished, those parts are inoperative. The remaining parts of chapter V concern the supervision and examination of savings associations and savings and loan holding companies. Since the abolishment of the OTS, the Agencies have republished those OTS regulations they will enforce in their own chapters of title 12.
In order to eliminate the confusion that may arise from having inoperative and superseded regulations of an abolished agency published in the CFR, the Department of the Treasury is removing chapter V of title 12 of the CFR.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires public notice and an opportunity to comment before an agency issues a final rule.
The Department of the Treasury finds that notice and comment are not required with respect to the removal of the parts of chapter V that govern the organization and administrative functions of the OTS because those
Furthermore, with respect to the removal of the parts of chapter V that govern savings associations and savings and loan holding companies, the Department of the Treasury finds that notice and comment under the APA are neither necessary nor in the public interest. As discussed above, titles III and X of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred the powers, authorities, rights, and duties of the OTS to the Agencies on July 21, 2011 and abolished the OTS on October 19, 2011. Since that time, the Agencies have issued rules that supersede the OTS regulations relating to savings associations and savings and loan holding companies. This final rule does not make any substantive changes to the regulations currently applicable to savings associations and savings and loan associations and does not substantively affect these regulated entities or the public. It simply removes obsolete provisions that are likely to be a source of confusion. For these reasons, advance notice and comment under the APA are unnecessary and not in the public interest.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating any rule likely to result in a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, adjusted for inflation.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a runway excursion due to an unexpected thrust increase leading to an unstable approach performed using the current flight management and guidance computer (FMGC) standard. This AD requires identification of potentially affected FMGCs, replacement of any affected FMGC, and applicable concurrent actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 15, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 15, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0122, dated June 21, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and 232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Following an instrument landing system (ILS) approach, during night, in rainy condition, an A321 aeroplane experienced a longitudinal runway excursion. Investigation revealed that the approach was not stabilized with an overspeed of 19 knots (kts) over the runway threshold, followed by a long flare (18 seconds) with touchdown far behind the touchdown zone. The aeroplane exited the runway at 75 kts and came to rest around 300 meters beyond the end of the runway. During the final approach, at 150 feet Radio Altimeter (RA) altitude, the corrected airspeed of the aeroplane was 165 kts (24 kts overspeed). Auto thrust (ATHR) commanded a transient N1 increase up to 70% due to the ATHR speed Mach control law.
The ATHR system on A320 family aeroplane was designed to maintain accurately the aircraft speed/Mach to speed/Mach target by commanding the thrust, featuring also a trade-off at low altitude between thrust corrections to maintain speed equal to speed target and too large thrust corrections destabilizing the aircraft trajectory near the ground. The conclusions of the investigations were that the main contributor to this runway excursion was a non-stabilized approach not followed by a go-around. ATHR misbehaviour in case of large overspeed led to an unexpected thrust increase, which is considered as a contributor to the long flare.
This ATHR characteristic, reported as “Spurious thrust increase during approach,” was initially found in 1996 and a modification was developed and introduced in Flight Guidance (FG) 2G standard “C8 or I8” (C for CFM engines and I for IAE engines) in 2001.
Prompted by these findings, Airbus introduced a programme to encourage operators to replace the FMGC Legacy with the FMGC equipped with Flight Management System type 2 (FMS2) and FG standard, which introduces additional operational capabilities, including Runway Overrun Protection System/Runway Overrun Warning (ROPS/ROW) and Autopilot/Traffic Collision Avoidance System (AP/TCAS). It was determined that the ROPS, in a scenario similar to the one described above, would have triggered a <<RUNWAY TOO SHORT>> aural alert before touchdown. Information was made available through Airbus Service Information Letter (SIL) 22-039 (later superseded by Word In Service Experience (WISE) In Service Information 22.83.00003), and EASA published Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) 2013-19, recommending the FMGC upgrade.
Since EASA SIB was published, it was determined that many operators have chosen not to implement the optional upgrade that improves the ATHR behaviour.
More recently, prompted by a recommendation from the BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la sécurité de l'aviation civile) of France, to reduce the risk of further runway excursions due to uninterrupted unstable approaches performed with the legacy FMGC standard, EASA decided to require installation of at least the first version of the FMS2 and associated FG for legacy aeroplanes.
DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD 1999-411-140(B)R1 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2000-12-13, Amendment 39-11791 (65 FR 37845, June 19, 2000) (“AD 2000-12-13”)] and AD 1998-226-119(B)R1 [which corresponds to FAA AD 98-19-08, Amendment 39-10750 (63 FR 50503, September 22, 1998)] to address different unsafe conditions, requiring to install a certain previous FMGC standard that may be susceptible to the “Spurious thrust increase during approach”.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD * * * requires replacement of the affected FMGC units with upgraded units [and applicable concurrent actions].
Concurrent actions include the installation of certain FMGCs, wiring, display management computers, wiring associated with pin programming, and applicable operational program configuration disks. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. Air Line Pilots Association, International supported the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for replacement of any affected FMGC with a serviceable FMGC. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1090, Revision 11, dated July 20, 2004.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1103, Revision 04, dated March 12, 2004.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1116, Revision 04, dated March 29, 2004.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1152, Revision 03, dated February 18, 2005.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1243, Revision 05, dated May 31, 2010.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1519, Revision 02, dated December 21, 2015.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 1,032 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective November 15, 2017.
This AD affects AD 2000-12-13, Amendment 39-11791 (65 FR 37845, June 19, 2000) (“AD 2000-12-13”).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Auto Flight.
This AD was prompted by a report of a runway excursion due to an unexpected thrust increase leading to an unstable approach performed using the current flight management and guidance computer (FMGC) standard. We are issuing this AD to prevent unstable approaches due to an unexpected thrust increase, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane and runway excursions.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD: Inspect the FMGC to determine if any FMGC with an affected part number identified in Figure 1 to paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (h)(1), (h)(2), and (j) of this AD is installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of inspecting the FMGC, provided those records can be relied upon for that purpose and the part number of the FMGC can be conclusively identified from that review.
(2) If any affected FMGC with an affected part number identified in Figure 1 to paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (h)(1), (h)(2), and (j) of this AD is found during any inspection or review required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the FMGC with a serviceable FMGC having a part number that is not identified in Figure 1 to paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (h)(1), (h)(2), and (j) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions and paragraph 1.B. (concurrent actions) of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(vi) of this AD, or using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Refer to Figure 2 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD and Figure 3 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD for the lists of approved eligible FMGCs certified as of the effective date of this AD.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1090, Revision 11, dated July 20, 2004 (installation of FMGC part number (P/N) C13042BA01).
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1103, Revision 04, dated March 12, 2004 (installation of FMGC P/N C13043AA01).
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1116, Revision 04, dated March 29, 2004 (installation of FMGC P/N C13043BA01).
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1152, Revision 03, dated February 18, 2005 (installation of FMGC P/N C13043AA02).
(v) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1243, Revision 05, dated May 31, 2010 (installation of FMGC P/N C13043BA04).
(vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1519, Revision 02, dated December 21, 2015 (installation of FMGC P/N C13207CA00).
(1) An airplane on which Airbus Modification 31896 or Airbus Modification 31897 has been embodied in production is not affected by the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided it is conclusively determined that no FMGC with an affected part number identified in Figure 1 to paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (h)(1), (h)(2), and (j) of this AD has been installed on that airplane since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable to make this determination provided those records can be relied upon for that purpose and the part number of the FMGC can be conclusively identified from that review.
(2) An airplane on which the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) have been done before the effective date of this AD is not affected by the requirements in paragraph (g) of this AD, provided it is conclusively determined that no FMGC with an affected part number identified in Figure 1 to paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (h)(1), (h)(2), and (j) of this AD has been installed on that airplane since accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable to make this determination provided those records can be relied upon for that purpose and the part number of the FMGC can be conclusively identified from that review.
Installation of an FMGC standard approved after the effective date of this AD on any airplane, is acceptable for compliance with the actions required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, provided the conditions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD are accomplished.
(1) The software and hardware standard, as applicable, must be approved by the
(2) The installation must be accomplished using airplane modification instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane an FMGC with an affected part number identified in Figure 1 to paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (h)(1), (h)(2), and (j) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in Figure 4 to paragraph (k) of this AD.
Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, and, as applicable, paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, terminates all requirements of AD 2000-12-13.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0122, dated June 21, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(3) and (o)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1090, Revision 11, dated July 20, 2004.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1103, Revision 04, dated March 12, 2004.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1116, Revision 04, dated March 29, 2004.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1152, Revision 03, dated February 18, 2005.
(v) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1243, Revision 05, dated May 31, 2010.
(vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-22-1519, Revision 02, dated December 21, 2015.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), and Model A310 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of unreliable airspeed indications that were caused by pitot heater resistance shorted to ground. This AD requires replacement of certain parts. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 15, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 15, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), and Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0195, dated September 30, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
An operator recently reported two events of unreliable airspeed indications. Investigations revealed that in both events, a Pitot heater resistance was shorted to ground.
Pitot probes are heated to prevent ice accretion. De-icing performance of the Pitot probe might be reduced if Pitot probe heater
In severe icing conditions, if de-icing performances are significantly reduced, it may cause unreliable airspeed events, with no cockpit effects except erroneous airspeed indication(s) displayed on the Primary Flight Display (PFD) or the standby airspeed indicators.
Unreliable airspeed indications, if not recognized by the crew, could possibly result in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To ensure proper crew awareness of unreliable airspeed indication(s) situation, Airbus introduced a dedicated Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring (ECAM) Warning (Indicated Airspeed Discrepancy Warning).
The following configuration is required to enable this ECAM Warning:
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires a software standard upgrade of the ECAM SGU.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International and FedEx expressed support for the NPRM.
Airbus requested that we include historical information regarding EASA AD 2015-0174, which is included in the quoted MCAI material in the NPRM. Airbus explained that EASA AD 2015-0174, dated August 24, 2015, superseded EASA AD 2012-0088, dated June 25, 2012, which specified accomplishment of certain Airbus Service Bulletins. Airbus stated that any corresponding FAA ADs should also be identified.
We agree that additional historical information regarding EASA AD 2015-0174 and any corresponding FAA ADs would be helpful. We have added the requested historical information to the quoted MCAI material regarding EASA AD 2015-0174, which superseded EASA AD 2012-0088, and the corresponding FAA AD.
Airbus and FedEx requested that we revise the NPRM to allow use of ECAM SGU software standard W33, which includes the corrections found in ECAM SGU software standard W32.
FedEx also requested that we update the NPRM to include new service information that provides procedures for the upgrade to ECAM SGU software standard W33. FedEx mentioned that it is preparing to upgrade its fleet to ECAM SGU software standard W33.
We agree with the requests to allow use of ECAM SGU software standard W33, because ECAM SGU software standard W33 includes all of the necessary changes from ECAM SGU software standard W32. We have revised the preamble and regulatory text of this final rule, where applicable, to include the additional ECAM SGU software standard and part number.
We also agree to add Airbus Service Bulletins A300-31-6142, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2013, and A310-31-2145, Revision 01, dated November 13, 2013, for accomplishment of the installation of ECAM SGU software standard W33. We have revised this final rule accordingly.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Airbus has issued the following service information.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6113, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated July 5, 2016 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6124, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2016 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6142, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2013 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2123, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated July 1, 2016 (for Model A310 series airplanes).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2145, Revision 01, dated November 13, 2013 (for Model A310 series airplanes).
The service information describes procedures for replacement of the ECAM SGU software standard W32 or W33. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations or apply to different ECAM SGU software standards (W32, part number 9612670332, and W33, part number 9612670333). This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 139 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective November 15, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus modification 12691 or 13665 has been embodied in production.
(1) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
(5) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 31, Instruments.
This AD was prompted by reports of unreliable airspeed indications that were caused by pitot heater resistance shorted to ground. We are issuing this AD to ensure proper flight crew awareness of unreliable airspeed indications. This condition, if not recognized by the flight crew, could possibly result in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the ECAM SGU with a new ECAM SGU (software standard W32 or W33), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6113, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated July 5, 2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6142, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2013.
(2) For Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6124, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2016.
(3) For Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2123, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated July 1, 2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2145, Revision 01, dated November 13, 2013.
(1) As of the effective date of this AD, for any airplane that has ECAM SGU software standard W32, part number 9612670332, or ECAM SGU software standard W33, part number 9612670333, installed, no person may install an ECAM SGU software standard prior to W32.
(2) For any airplane that has an ECAM SGU software standard prior to W32, after modification of that airplane, no person may install an ECAM SGU software standard prior to W32.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), (i)(4), or (i)(5) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6113, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated September 4, 2014.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6124, Revision 00, dated October 13, 2005.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6142, Revision 00, dated August 13, 2013.
(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2123, Revision 00, dated January 4, 2006.
(5) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2145, Revision 00, dated August 13, 2013.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0195, dated September 30, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6113, Revision 03, including Appendix 01, dated July 5, 2016.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6124, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2016.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6142, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2013.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2123, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated July 1, 2016.
(v) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2145, Revision 01, dated November 13, 2013.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of laminated shims that may have been improperly installed at a certain wing tie beam. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certification maintenance requirement tasks that introduce revised checks of the tie beam. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 15, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 15, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-34, dated October 14, 2016 (referred to after
Bombardier has determined that laminated shims may have been improperly installed at the floor/wing tie beam bumper pads. Improperly installed shims may become damaged, which could result in a gapping condition. This would lead to increased stress and degradation of structural integrity of the tie beam. Undetected failure may lead to premature cracking of the pressure floor.
Bombardier has introduced revised maintenance tasks through revisions of the applicable CL-600 Time Limits Maintenance Checks (TLMCs) to confirm structural integrity of the affected tie beam.
This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate the incorporation of the applicable revised TLMC tasks.
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Bombardier, Inc., has issued the following service information.
• Task 53-10-00-131, “Pressure Floor—Wing Tie Beam—FS460.00,” of Section 5-10-30, “Airworthiness Limitation Checks by ATA Chapter Number,” of Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 605, Revision 37, dated April 29, 2016.
• Task 53-10-00-133, “Pressure Floor—Wing Tie Beam—FS460.00,” of Section 5-10-30, “Airworthiness Limitation Checks by ATA Chapter Number,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 44, dated April 29, 2016.
• Task 53-10-00-134, “Pressure Floor—Wing Tie Beam—FS460.00,” of Section 5-10-30, “Airworthiness Limitation Checks by ATA Chapter Number,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601A-5, Revision 40, dated April 29, 2016.
This service information identifies airworthiness limitation tasks for checks of the pressure floor at a certain wing tie beam. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 137 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective November 15, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes, serial numbers 1004 through 1085 inclusive; Model CL-600-2A12 airplanes (CL-601 Variant), serial numbers 3001 through 3066 inclusive; and Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes, serial numbers 5001 through 5194 inclusive; certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of laminated shims that may have been improperly installed at a certain wing tie beam. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct degradation of the structural integrity of the affected tie beam, which could result in cracking of the pressure floor.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the certification maintenance requirement (CMR) task specified in the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD. The initial compliance time for the task is within the applicable time specified in the service information, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(1) For Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes: Task 53-10-00-131, “Pressure Floor—Wing Tie Beam—FS460.00,” of Section 5-10-30, “Airworthiness Limitation Checks by ATA Chapter Number,” of Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 605, Revision 37, dated April 29, 2016.
(2) For Model CL-600-2A12 airplanes (CL-601 Variant) airplanes: Task 53-10-00-133, “Pressure Floor—Wing Tie Beam—FS460.00,” of Section 5-10-30, “Airworthiness Limitation Checks by ATA Chapter Number,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 44, dated April 29, 2016.
(3) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes: Task 53-10-00-134, “Pressure Floor—Wing Tie Beam—FS460.00,” of Section 5-10-30, “Airworthiness Limitation Checks by ATA Chapter Number,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601A-5, Revision 40, dated April 29, 2016.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-34, dated October 14, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Task 53-10-00-131, “Pressure Floor—Wing Tie Beam—FS460.00,” of Section 5-10-30, “Airworthiness Limitation Checks by ATA Chapter Number,” of Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 605, Revision 37, dated April 29, 2016. The revision level of this document is identified on only the Transmittal Letter.
(ii) Task 53-10-00-133, “Pressure Floor—Wing Tie Beam—FS460.00,” of Section 5-10-30, “Airworthiness Limitation Checks by ATA Chapter Number,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 44, dated April 29, 2016. The revision level of this document is identified on only the Transmittal Letter.
(iii) Task 53-10-00-134, “Pressure Floor—Wing Tie Beam—FS460.00,” of Section 5-10-30, “Airworthiness Limitation Checks by ATA Chapter Number,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601A-5, Revision 40, dated April 29, 2016. The revision level of this document is identified on only the Transmittal Letter.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sunriver Airport, Sunriver, OR, to accommodate airspace redesign for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.
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 E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sunriver Airport, Sunriver, OR, to support IFR operations under standard instrument approach procedures.
On July 5, 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 part 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, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sunriver Airport, Sunriver, OR. The airspace is modified to within 4 miles each side of the 016° bearing extending from Sunriver Airport to 14.3 miles north of the airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the 196° bearing extending from the airport to 7 miles south of the airport. This action slightly reduces the airspace area east and west of the airport due to the new airspace configuration for the safety and management of aircraft 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 700 feet above the surface within 4 miles each side of the 016° bearing extending from Sunriver Airport to 14.3 miles north of the airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the 196° bearing from the airport extending to 7 miles south of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, technical amendment.
This action incorporates certain amendments into FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, for incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
Effective date 0901 UTC October 11, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR 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.
Sarah A. Combs, 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 makes the necessary updates for airspace areas within the National Airspace System.
Federal Aviation Administration Airspace Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1, is published yearly. Amendments referred to as “effective date straddling amendments” were published under Order 7400.11A (dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016), but became effective under Order 7400.11B (dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017). This action incorporates these rules into the current FAA Order 7400.11B.
Accordingly, as this is an administrative correction to update final rule amendments into FAA Order 7400.11B, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. Also, to bring these rules and legal descriptions current, I find that good cause exists, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to incorporate certain final rules into the current FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which are depicted on aeronautical charts.
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 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.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA 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.
For Docket No. FAA-2016-9118; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-3 (82 FR 28401, June 22, 2017). On page 28401, column 3, line 59, under
For Docket No. FAA-2015-6751; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-18 (82 FR 31440, July 7, 2017). On page 31440, column 3, line 39, under
For Docket No. FAA-2016-9544; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-22 (82 FR 32450, July 14, 2017). On page 32450, column 2, line 24, and line 37, under
For Docket No. FAA-2016-9480; Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-13 (82 FR 33790, July 21, 2017). On page 33790, column 2, line 6, and line 19, under
For Docket No. FAA-2016-9488; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-18 (82 FR 33792, July 21, 2017). On page 33793, column 1, line 9, and line 22, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0070; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-2 (82 FR 33794, July 21, 2017). On page 33794, column 1, line 31, and line 45, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0071; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-3 (82 FR 33795, July 21, 2017). On page 33795, column 1, line 56, and column 2, line 10, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0195; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-14 (82 FR 33796, July 21, 2017). On page 33796, column 2, line 39, under
For Docket No. FAA-2013-0442; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASO-12 (82 FR 33798, July 21, 2017). On page 33798, column 1, line 30, and line 43, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0237; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-10 (82 FR 35057, July 28, 2017). On page 35057, column 2, line 51, under
For Docket No. FAA-2016-9474; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-24 (82 FR 35058, July 28, 2017). On page 35058, column 3, line 33, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0258; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-15 (82 FR 35060, July 28, 2017). On page 35060, column 2, line 3, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0046; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-3 (82 FR 35061, July 28, 2017). On page 35061, column 2, line 52, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0315; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-5 (82 FR 35438, July 31, 2017). On page 35438, column 2, line 41, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0210; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-10 (82 FR 35649, August 1, 2017). On page 35649, column 3, line 13, and line 26, under
For Docket No. FAA-2016-8162; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-12 (82 FR 36077, August 3, 2017). On page 36077, column 1, line 48, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0355; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-12 (82 FR 36078, August 3, 2017). On page 36079, column 1, line 9, and line 22, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0297; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-4 (82 FR 37514, August 11, 2017). On page 37514, column 3, line 20, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0287; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-6 (82 FR 38821, August 16, 2017). On page 38821, column 1, line 44, and column 2, line 1, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0298; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-7 (82 FR 38822, August 16, 2017). On page 38822, column 2, line 34, and line 47, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0109; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-13 (82 FR 39532, August 21, 2017). On page 39532, column 1, line 33, and line 46, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0296; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-7 (82 FR 40692, August 28, 2017). On page 40693, column 1, line 24, and line 37, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0182; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-3 (82 FR 40694, August 28, 2017). On page 40694, column 1, line 54, and column 2, line 7, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0165; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-1 (82 FR 40695, August 28, 2017). On page 40695, column 2, line 35, and line 48, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0722; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-16 (82 FR 40696, August 28, 2017). On page 40696, column 2, line 56, and column 3, line 10, under
For Docket No. FAA-2017-0184; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-5 (82 FR 40697, August 28, 2017). On page 40697, column 3, line 32, and line 45, under
For Docket No. FAA-2016-9593; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-12 (82 FR 42445, September 8, 2017). On page 42446, column 1, line 19, and line 32, under
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Big Timber Airport, Big Timber, MT, to accommodate the development of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport, for the safety and management of aircraft within the National Airspace System.
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 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the earth at Big Timber Airport, Big Timber, MT, for the safety of aircraft and management of airspace within the National Airspace System.
On July 5, 2017, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 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 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, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11A 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 an 8-mile radius of the Big Timber Airport, Big Timber, MT, with a 12-mile wide segment extending to 27.4 miles east of the airport, and a 7.6-mile wide segment extending to 12.5 miles west of the airport. This airspace is necessary to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures 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 upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8-mile radius of Big Timber Airport, and within 8 miles north and 4 miles south of the 074° bearing from the airport extending to 27.4 miles east of the airport, and within 3.8 miles each side of the 253° bearing from the airport extending to 12.5 miles west of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies airspace designations at Molokai Airport, Kaunakakai, HI. The FAA establishes an area of Class E airspace designated as a surface area; modifies Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or E surface area; and modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. Also, this action updates the airport's geographic coordinates for the associated Class D and E airspace areas to reflect the FAA's current aeronautical database and removes references to the Molokai VHF omnidirectional range/tactical air navigation (VORTAC). These changes enhance safety and support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
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 establishes Class E surface area airspace and modifies Class D and Class E airspace at Molokai Airport, Kaunakakai, HI, in support of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport.
On July 28, 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 establishing Class E airspace designated as surface area at Molokai Airport, Kaunakakai, HI. This new airspace designation, within a 4.3-mile radius of the airport, provides controlled airspace to support increased aircraft operations under IFR during the hours that the Class D airspace area is not in effect.
This action also amends Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or E surface area at the airport by increasing the area to a 4.3-mile wide segment (from 3.6 miles wide) extending to 8 miles west (from 7.2 miles west) of the airport. The part-time NOTAM information is removed because Class D airspace or Class E surface airspace is continuous. The FAA also removes reference to the Molokai VORTAC in the airspace legal
Additionally, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is enlarged west of the airport from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to an area 10 miles wide (from 3.6 miles wide) extending to 12.4 miles west (from 8.3 miles west) of the airport.
This action also updates the airport's geographic coordinates for the associated Class D and E airspace areas to reflect the FAA's current aeronautical database. Additionally, this action replaces the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement” in the Class D and E airspace legal descriptions. These modifications are necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Lastly, a technical amendment is made to rename the airspace designation for the following airspace areas: AWP HI D Molokai, HI, is renamed Kaunakakai, HI; AWP HI E2 Molokai, HI, is renamed Kaunakakai, HI; and AWP HI E5 Molokai, HI, is renamed Kaunakakai, HI, to remain consistent in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, 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 3,000 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Molokai Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Molokai Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.5 miles north and 2.8 miles south of a 255° bearing from Molokai Airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 8 miles west of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Molokai Airport and within 5.4 miles north and 4.8 miles south of a 255° bearing from Molokai Airport extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 12.4 miles west of the airport.
Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury (the “Department” or “Treasury”) publishes this final rule to update its Employee Rules of Conduct, which prescribe uniform rules of conduct and procedure for all employees and officials in the Department.
Brian Sonfield, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, General Law and Regulation, (202) 622-9804.
On June 1, 1995, the Department issued Employee Rules of Conduct prescribing uniform rules of conduct and procedure for all employees and officials in the Department. On February 19, 2016, Treasury published in the
The interim final rule went into effect on February 19, 2016. The public comment period for the interim final rule closed on April 19, 2016. One written comment responding to the interim final rule was received and is available for public inspection at
Section 0.216 of the interim final rule states: “Except for the official handling, through the proper channels, of matters relating to legislation in which the Department has an interest, employees shall not use government time, money, or property to petition a Member of Congress to favor or oppose any legislation or proposed legislation, or to encourage others to do so.” The commenter expressed concern that this language has the potential to interfere with the right of an employee representative under the Federal Labor Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101,
Treasury recognizes that it has a duty to bargain with the representatives of its employees over proposals to permit the use of official time for such representatives to lobby Congress regarding matters affecting conditions of employment.
Treasury disagrees that section 0.216 can reasonably be construed to limit all communications between union leaders and bargaining unit employees about legislative proposals, including those that would educate union members about legislative proposals affecting their government employment. The rule prohibits only the use of government time, money, or property for communications encouraging others to petition a Member of Congress to favor or oppose any legislation or proposed legislation. Such a prohibition does not interfere with any employee right.
Although not the subject of a public comment, Treasury has also made a clarifying change to section 0.215. That section of the interim final rule provided: “An employee shall not electronically transmit, or create audio or video recordings of, conversations, meetings, or conferences in the workplace or while conducting business on behalf of the Department, except where
Because, as explained at 81 FR 8402 (Feb. 19, 2016), no notice of proposed rulemaking was required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act) requires an agency to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. This rule generally sets out the conduct regulations that all Department employees and officials are required to follow. The Department therefore has determined that the rule will not result in expenditures by state, local or tribal governments or by the private sector of $100 million or more. Accordingly, the Department has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), rules relating to agency management and personnel are exempt from the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). As set forth in the description of the interim rule, this final rule affects only the Department and its personnel; therefore, the APA requirements for prior notice and opportunity to comment and a delayed effective date are inapplicable. Even if this rulemaking were subject to APA procedures, the Department finds that good cause exists, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d), that the requirements for prior notice and comment are unnecessary because the rule affects only Treasury employees.
Government employees.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, the interim rule published February 19, 2016, at 81 FR 8402, is adopted as final with the following changes:
5 U.S.C. 301.
An employee shall not electronically transmit, or create audio or video recordings of, conversations, meetings, or conferences in the workplace or while conducting business on behalf of the Department, except where authorized.
Except for the official handling, through the proper channels, of matters relating to legislation in which the Department has an interest, employees shall not use government time, money, or property to petition a Member of Congress to favor or oppose any legislation or proposed legislation, or to encourage others to do so. This section does not prohibit the use of government time by union representatives to petition a Member of Congress to favor or oppose any legislation or proposed legislation, where permitted by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This final rule sets out the Department of the Treasury's (Treasury) rules for implementing the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (the Act). The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. The Act, which applies to persons of all ages, permits the use of certain age distinctions and factors other than age that meet the Act's requirements. This final rule follows publication of an August 4, 2015, proposed rule and takes into account the comments received.
Effective November 13, 2017.
Mariam G. Harvey, Director, Office of Civil Rights and Diversity, Department of the Treasury, (202) 622-0316 (voice).
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6101-6107 (“the Act”), which Congress enacted as part of amendments to the Older Americans Act (Pub. L. 94-135, 89 Stat. 713, 728), prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-259, 102 Stat. 28, 31 (1988)) amended the Act and other civil rights statutes to define “program or activity” to mean all of the operations of specified entities, any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.
The Act applies to discrimination at all age levels. The Act also contains specific exceptions that permit the use of certain age distinctions and factors other than age that meet the Act's requirements.
The Act required the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to issue general, government-wide regulations, setting standards to be followed by all Federal agencies implementing the Act. These government-wide regulations, which were issued on June 12, 1979 (44 FR 33768), and became effective on July 1, 1979, require each Federal agency providing financial assistance to any program or activity to publish proposed regulations implementing the Act, and to submit final agency regulations to HEW (now the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)), before publication in the
The Act became effective on the effective date of HEW's final government-wide regulations (
On August 4, 2015 (80 FR 46208), the Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking and invited comments on all aspects of the proposal.
This rule is designed to fulfill the statutory and regulatory obligations of Treasury to issue a regulation implementing the Act that conforms to the government-wide regulations at 45 CFR part 90. The rule carries out the Act's prohibition of discrimination based on age in programs and activities receiving financial assistance from Treasury and provides appropriate investigative, conciliation, and enforcement procedures. OCRD, part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Management, will conduct Treasury enforcement. OCRD enforces all civil rights laws applicable to entities receiving financial assistance from Treasury.
The rule is not intended to alter the legal standards found in the Act or the government-wide regulations, which are applicable to recipients of Federal financial assistance from Treasury under other statutes. Treasury does not provide financial assistance within the meaning of these rules merely by disbursing a payment on behalf of another Federal agency. The rule closely follows the wording and format of rules issued by other Federal agencies to implement the Act. In particular, Treasury modeled much of its proposal on the agency-specific regulations issued by HHS, the lead Federal agency coordinating implementation of the Act (45 CFR part 91; 47 FR 57850, Dec. 28, 1982); and the Department of Education (ED) (34 CFR part 110; 58 FR 40194, July 27, 1993). The government-wide, HHS, and ED rules were subjected to extensive public scrutiny, and the public comments were considered in finalizing those rules. Readers may review the HHS and ED
In general, the final rule mirrors the government-wide regulations at 45 CFR part 90 and HHS's and ED's regulations implementing the Act, with modifications to aid consistency and clarify the Treasury specific provisions. Subpart A sets forth the rule's purpose, applications, and definitions. Subpart B contains the standards for determining age discrimination. Subpart C comprises the duties and responsibilities of Treasury recipients. Subpart D establishes the procedures for investigations, conciliation and enforcement. For a complete discussion of the proposal, see the August 4, 2015, proposed rule at 80 FR 46208.
Treasury received three comments on the proposed rule which generally supported the rule. One commenter suggested revisions that are discussed below.
The commenter suggested there could be confusion in the employer community and among employees who may not be aware that the Age Discrimination Act (Age Act), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) are separate statutes with
The commenter noted that the proposed rule purported to apply to programs under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) (29 U.S.C. 801,
The commenter suggested that the rule, at § 23.46(a)(2)(ii), should make more clear that referrals will be made to the EEOC with respect to violations of the ADEA. Treasury edited the rule to add specifically that referrals will be made to the EEOC, Labor, HHS or Education as applicable. The general reference in § 23.46(a)(2)(ii) to any Federal, State, or local government agency remains since referrals could be made to other agencies as well.
The commenter suggested that the ADEA be added to the definitions section in § 23.4. In response to this comment, Treasury added the ADEA to the definitions section.
The commenter noted that the Supreme Court held in
Another comment noted that §§ 23.13 and 23.14 discuss the defenses of 42 U.S.C. 6103(b)(1) (A) and (B), that the defense in subparagraph (A) appears to be functionally similar to the “bona fide occupational qualification” (BFOQ) defense set out in § 4(f)(1) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. 623(f)(1), and that the language of the defense in subparagraph (B) is identical to the “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) defense set out in the same ADEA section. The commenter then noted that the EEOC regulations at 29 CFR 1625.6 and 1625.7 address the BFOQ and RFOA defenses and suggested that Treasury consider whether any points made in the EEOC's BFOQ or RFOA regulations should be adapted for inclusion in the Age Act regulation. The commenter also cited the Supreme Court's decision in
Treasury considered adopting the EEOC's regulations for BFOQ and RFOA under the ADEA, but the legislative intent of the two statutes (ADEA and Age Act) is different. The ADEA was designed to protect older workers, while the Age Act was intended to prohibit all kinds of unreasonable age discrimination. In addition, adopting EEOC's BFOQ and RFOA factors, and applying them outside of the employment arena could create confusion with the ADEA. For these reasons, Treasury decided not to adopt the EEOC's regulations for BFOQ and RFOA for inclusion in our Age Act regulation.
The commenter noted that §§ 23.43(c) and 23.44(a)(3) discuss mediation agreements and, if the settlement purports to include rights under the ADEA, section 7(f) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. 626(f), sets out specific rules for the waiver of rights and claims under the ADEA.
This rule is not a ”significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis has been prepared.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act) requires an agency to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. This rule will not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments or by the private sector of $100 million or more. Accordingly, the Department has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered.
Aged, Discrimination against aged.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury amends subtitle A of title 31 of the CFR by adding part 23 to read as follows:
Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6101
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, is designed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. The Act also permits federally assisted programs and activities, and recipients of Federal funds, to continue to use certain age distinctions and factors other than age that meet the requirements of the Act and these regulations.
The purpose of these regulations is to set out Treasury's policies and procedures under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and the general age discrimination regulations at 45 CFR part 90. The Act and the general regulations prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. The Act and the general regulations permit federally assisted programs and activities, and recipients of Federal funds, to continue to use age distinctions and factors other than age that meet the requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations. These regulations do not apply to actions arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Public Law 90-202, 29 U.S.C. 621 through 634 (ADEA), and do not in any way affect the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's regulations implementing the ADEA at 29 CFR 1625, 1626, and 1627.
(a) This part applies to any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from Treasury.
(b) The regulations in this part do not apply to:
(1) An age distinction contained in that part of a Federal, State, or local statute or ordinance adopted by an elected, general purpose legislative body that:
(i) Provides any benefits or assistance to persons based on age; or
(ii) Establishes criteria for participation in age-related terms; or
(iii) Describes intended beneficiaries to target groups in age-related terms; or
(2) Any employment practice of any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or any labor-management joint apprenticeship training program.
As used in these regulations, the term:
(1) Funds; or
(2) Services of Federal personnel; or
(3) Real and personal property or any interest in or use or property, including:
(i) Transfers or leases of property for less than fair market value or for reduced consideration; and
(ii) Proceeds from a subsequent transfer or lease of property if the federal share of its fair market value is not returned to the Federal Government.
(1)(i) A department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or
(ii) The entity of such State or local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government;
(2)(i) A college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education; or
(ii) A local educational agency (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801), system of vocational education, or other school system;
(3)(i) An entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or an entire sole proprietorship—
(A) If assistance is extended to such corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship as a whole; or
(B) That is principally engaged in the business of providing education, health care, housing, social services, or parks and recreation; or
(ii) The entire plant or other comparable, geographically separate facility to which Federal financial assistance is extended, in the case of any other corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship; or
(4) Any other entity that is established by two or more of the entities described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this definition.
The rules stated in this section are limited by the exceptions contained in §§ 23.13 and 23.14.
(a)
(b)
(1) Excluding individuals from, denying them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under, a program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or
(2) Denying or limiting individuals in their opportunity to participate in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
(c)
For purposes of §§ 23.13 and 23.14, the terms “normal operation” and “statutory objective” shall have the following meaning:
(a)
(b)
A recipient is permitted to take an action, otherwise prohibited by § 23.11, if the action reasonably takes into account age as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity. An action reasonably takes into account age as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity, if:
(a) Age is used as a measure or approximation of one or more other characteristics; and
(b) The other characteristic(s) must be measured or approximated for the normal operation of the program or activity to continue, or to achieve any statutory objective of the program or activity; and
(c) The other characteristic(s) can be reasonably measured or approximated by the use of age; and
(d) The other characteristic(s) are impractical to measure directly on an individual basis.
A recipient is permitted to take an action otherwise prohibited by § 23.11 that is based on a factor other than age, even though that action may have a disproportionate effect on persons of different ages. An action may be based on a factor other than age only if the factor bears a direct and substantial relationship to the normal operation of the program or activity or to the achievement of a statutory objective.
The burden of proving that an age distinction or other action falls within the exceptions outlined in §§ 23.13 and 23.14 is on the recipient of Federal financial assistance.
Even in the absence of a finding of discrimination, a recipient may take affirmative action to overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation in the recipient's program or activity on the basis of age.
If a recipient's operation of a program or activity provides special benefits to the elderly or to children, such use of age distinctions shall be presumed to be necessary to the normal operation of the program or activity, notwithstanding the provisions of § 23.13.
Any age distinctions contained in a rule or regulation issued by Treasury shall be presumed to be necessary to the achievement of a statutory objective of the program or activity to which the rule or regulation applies, notwithstanding the provisions of § 23.13.
Each Treasury recipient has primary responsibility to ensure that its programs and activities are in compliance with the Act and these regulations, and shall take steps to eliminate violations of the Act. A recipient also has responsibility to maintain records, provide information, and afford Treasury access to its records to the extent Treasury finds necessary to determine whether the recipient is in compliance with the Act and these regulations.
(a) Where a recipient passes on Federal financial assistance from Treasury to subrecipients, the recipient shall provide the subrecipients written notice of their obligations under the Act and these regulations.
(b) Each recipient shall make necessary information about the Act and these regulations available to its program beneficiaries to inform them about the protections against discrimination provided by the Act and these regulations.
(a)
(b)
(2) Whenever an assessment indicates a violation of the Act or the Treasury regulations, the recipient shall take corrective action.
Each recipient shall:
(a) Keep records in a form and containing information that Treasury determines may be necessary to ascertain whether the recipient is complying with the Act and these regulations.
(b) Provide to Treasury, upon request, information and reports that Treasury determines are necessary to ascertain whether the recipient is complying with the Act and these regulations.
(c) Permit reasonable access by Treasury to the books, records, accounts, and other recipient facilities and sources of information to the extent Treasury determines is necessary to ascertain whether the recipient is complying with the Act and these regulations.
(a) Treasury may conduct compliance reviews and pre-award reviews or use other similar procedures that will permit it to investigate and correct violations of the Act and these regulations. Treasury may conduct these reviews even in the absence of a complaint against a recipient. The reviews may be as comprehensive as necessary to determine whether a violation of the Act or these regulations has occurred.
(b) If a compliance review or pre-award review indicates a violation of the Act or these regulations, Treasury will attempt to achieve voluntary compliance. If voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, Treasury will arrange for enforcement as described in § 23.46.
(a) Any person, individually or as a member of a class or on behalf of others, may file a complaint with Treasury, alleging discrimination prohibited by the Act or these regulations based on an action occurring on or after July 1, 1979. A complainant shall file a complaint within 180 days from the date the complainant first had knowledge of the alleged act of discrimination. However, for good cause shown, Treasury may extend this time limit.
(b) Treasury will consider the date a complaint is filed to be the date upon which the complaint is sufficient to be processed.
(c) Treasury will attempt to facilitate the filing of complaints wherever possible, including taking the following measures:
(1) Accepting as a sufficient complaint any written statement that identifies the parties involved and the date the complainant first had knowledge of the alleged violation, describes generally the action or practice complained of, and is signed by the complainant.
(2) Freely permitting a complainant to add information to the complaint to meet the requirements of a sufficient complaint.
(3) Notifying the complainant and the recipient of their rights and obligations under the complaint procedure, including the right to have a representative at all stages of the complaint resolution process.
(4) Notifying the complainant and the recipient (or their representatives) of their right to contact Treasury for information and assistance regarding the complaint resolution process.
(d) Treasury will notify the complainant when the complaint falls outside the jurisdiction of these regulations, and will state the reason(s) why it is outside the jurisdiction of these regulations.
(a) Treasury will promptly refer to a mediation agency designated by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) all sufficient complaints that:
(1) Fall within the jurisdiction of the Act and these regulations, unless the age distinction complained of is clearly within an exception; and,
(2) Contain all information necessary for further processing.
(b) Both the complainant and the recipient shall participate in the mediation process to the extent necessary to reach an agreement or make an informed judgment that an agreement is not possible.
(c) If the complainant and the recipient reach an agreement, the mediator shall prepare a written statement of the agreement and have the complainant and the recipient sign it. The mediator shall send a copy of the agreement to Treasury. Treasury will take no further action on the complaint unless the complainant or the recipient fails to comply with the agreement.
(d) The mediator shall protect the confidentially of all information obtained in the course of the mediation process. No mediator shall testify in any adjudicative proceeding, produce any document, or otherwise disclose any information obtained in the course of the mediation process without prior approval of the head of the mediation agency.
(e)(1) The mediation will proceed for a maximum of 60 days after a complaint is filed with Treasury. Mediation ends if:
(i) 60 days elapse from the time the complaint is filed; or
(ii) Prior to the end of that 60-day period, an agreement is reached; or
(iii) Prior to the end of that 60-day period, the mediator determines that an agreement cannot be reached.
(2) This 60-day period may be extended by the mediator, with the concurrence of Treasury, for not more than 30 days if the mediator determines that agreement likely will be reached during such extended period.
(f) The mediator shall notify Treasury when mediation is not successful and Treasury will continue processing the complaint.
(a)
(2) As part of the initial investigation, Treasury will use informal fact finding methods, including joint or separate discussions with the complainant and recipient, to establish the facts and, if possible, settle the complaint on terms that are mutually agreeable to the parties. Treasury may seek the assistance of any involved State agency.
(3) Any settlement agreement will be put in writing and the parties will sign it.
(4) The settlement shall not affect the operation of any other enforcement effort of Treasury, including compliance reviews and investigation of other complaints that may involve the recipient.
(5) The settlement is not a finding of discrimination against a recipient.
(b)
A recipient may not engage in acts of intimidation or retaliation against any person who:
(a) Attempts to assert a right protected by the Act or these regulations; or
(b) Cooperates in any mediation, investigation, hearing, or other part of Treasury's investigation, conciliation, and enforcement process.
(a) Treasury may enforce the Act and these regulations through:
(1) Termination of a recipient's Federal financial assistance from Treasury under the program or activity involved where the recipient has violated the Act or these regulations. The determination of the recipient's violation may be made only after a recipient has had an opportunity for a hearing on the record before an administrative law judge.
(2) Any other means authorized by law, including but not limited to:
(i) Referral to the Department of Justice for proceedings to enforce any rights of the United States or obligations of the recipient created by the Act or these regulations;
(ii) Referral to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the Department of Education, as applicable; and
(iii) Use of any requirement of or referral to any Federal, State, or local government agency that will have the effect of correcting a violation of the Act or these regulations.
(b) Treasury will limit any termination under paragraph (a)(1) of this section to the particular recipient and particular program or activity or part of such program or activity Treasury finds in violation of these regulations. Treasury will not base any part of a termination on a finding with respect to any program or activity of the recipient that does not receive Federal financial assistance from Treasury.
(c) Treasury will take no action under paragraph (a) of this section until:
(1) The Secretary has advised the recipient of its failure to comply with the Act and these regulations and has determined that voluntary compliance cannot be obtained.
(2) Thirty days have elapsed after the Secretary has sent a written report of the circumstances and grounds of the action to the committees of Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the Federal program or activity involved. The Secretary will file a report whenever any action is taken under paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) Treasury also may defer granting new Federal financial assistance to a recipient when a hearing under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is initiated.
(1) New Federal financial assistance from Treasury includes all assistance for which Treasury requires an application or approval, including renewal or continuation of existing activities, or authorization of new activities, during the deferral period. New Federal financial assistance from Treasury does not include increases in funding as a result of changed computation of formula awards or assistance approved prior to the beginning of a hearing under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2) Treasury will not begin a deferral until the recipient has received a notice of an opportunity for a hearing under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Treasury will not continue a deferral for more than 60 days unless a hearing has begun within that time or the time for beginning the hearing has been extended by mutual consent of the recipient and the Secretary. Treasury will not continue a deferral for more than 30 days after the close of the hearing, unless the hearing results in a finding against the recipient.
(3) Treasury will limit any deferral to the particular recipient and particular program or activity or part of such program or activity Treasury finds in violation of these regulations. Treasury will not base any part of a deferral on a finding with respect to any program or activity of the recipient that does not, and would not in connection with the new funds, receive Federal financial assistance from Treasury.
Treasury procedural provisions for hearings, decisions, and post-termination proceedings applicable to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations within Title 31 of the CFR shall apply to Treasury enforcement of these regulations.
Where Treasury finds a recipient has discriminated on the basis of age in violation of the Act or this part, the recipient shall take any remedial action that Treasury may require to overcome the effects of the discrimination.
(a) When Treasury withholds funds from a recipient under these regulations, the Secretary may disburse the withheld funds directly to an alternate recipient, where appropriate: Any public or non-profit private organization or agency, or State or political subdivision of the State.
(b) The Secretary will require any alternate recipient to demonstrate:
(1) The ability to comply with these regulations; and
(2) The ability to achieve the goals of the Federal statute authorizing the Federal financial assistance.
(a) A complainant may file a civil action following the exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Act. Administrative remedies are exhausted if:
(1) 180 days have elapsed since the complainant filed the complaint and Treasury has made no finding with regard to the complainant; or
(2) Treasury issues any finding in favor of the recipient.
(b) If Treasury fails to make a finding within 180 days or issues a finding in favor of the recipient, Treasury shall:
(1) Promptly advise the complainant of this fact; and
(2) Advise the complainant of his or her right to bring a civil action for injunctive relief; and
(3) Inform the complainant:
(i) That the complainant may bring a civil action only in a United States district court for the district in which the recipient is found or transacts business;
(ii) That a complainant prevailing in a civil action has the right to be awarded the costs of the action, including reasonable attorney's fee, but that the complainant must demand these costs in the complaint.
(iii) That before commencing the action the complainant shall give 30 days notice by registered mail to the Secretary, the Secretary of HHS, the Attorney General of the United States, and the recipient.
(iv) That the notice must state: The alleged violation of the Act; the relief requested; the court in which the complainant is bringing the action; and whether or not attorney's fees are demanded in the event the complainant prevails; and
(v) That the complainant may not bring an action if the same alleged violation of the Act by the same recipient is the subject of a pending action in any court of the United States.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the community to participate in the Walk Against Breast Cancer event. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.
This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. through 11 a.m. on October 22, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0963, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516; email
The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge over the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. through 11 a.m. on October 22, 2017, to allow the community to participate in the Walk Against Breast Cancer event. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. In the event of an emergency the draw can open on signal if at least one hour notice is given to the bridge operator. There are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary interim rule; request for comments.
The Coast Guard is establishing an intermittent safety zone related to ongoing construction of South Carolina Highway 31 (SC-31) Bridge located in Socastee, SC on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at mile marker 372.3. The temporary safety zone will be set one day per week during overhead construction operations. The safety zone is needed to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the bridge construction. Details for specific dates and times will be relayed via Sector Charleston Marine Safety Information Bulletin and Seventh District Local Notice Mariners. Entry of vessels or persons into these zones is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this rulemaking.
This rule is effective from October 11, 2017 until March 19, 2018. Comments and related materials must be received by the Coast Guard on or before November 13, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0801 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Lieutenant Justin Heck, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with bridge construction operations that are scheduled to begin on October 16, 2017. The Coast Guard was initially notified of the need for a safety zone on August 8, 2017. Hurricane Irma impacted the timeline for commencement of the project and the Coast Guard received updated plans for the construction operations on September 18, 2017. Therefore, publishing an NPRM is impracticable and contrary to public interest.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated above, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material
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
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Charleston has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge construction starting October 16, 2017 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard radius of the bridge, vessels, and machinery. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the construction is in progress.
This rule establishes an intermittent safety zone related to construction of the South Carolina Highway 31 (SC-31) Bridge located in Socastee, SC on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at mile marker 372.3. The temporary safety zone will be set during overhead construction operations starting October 16, 2017 and ending March 19, 2018. The safety zone is scheduled to take place one day per week between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. The safety zone is needed to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the bridge construction. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 200 yards of the bridge, vessels, and machinery. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without first obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
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 following reasons: (1) Although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; and (2) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section VI.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
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 an intermittent safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area surrounding the SC-31 Bridge on the Atlantic Intracoastal Water Way. This rule 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, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is revising and restating its privacy regulations to implement numerous non-substantive editorial changes. These include renaming certain offices with privacy-related duties, modification of the roles of employees tasked with implementing aspects of the privacy regulations, and minor editorial changes to postal privacy policy to improve its consistency and clarity. These rules contain procedures by which individuals may request notification of and access to records about themselves, request amendments to those records, or request an accounting of disclosures of those records by the Postal Service.
Effective October 11, 2017.
Natalie A. Bonanno, Chief Counsel, Federal Compliance,
As revised and restated, 39 CFR part 266 is designed to carry forward the substantive content of former §§ 266.1-266.10 in an updated, accessible format.
The Postal Service has revised § 266.1 to align with the purpose and scope of the Privacy Act of 1974, which provides the authority for these regulations. (The Postal Service has deleted former
In revised § 266.2 and throughout these regulations, the Postal Service has updated office names to reflect its current administrative structure. Thus, “Records Office” has been changed to “Privacy and Records Management Office” to reflect the new name of this office. Similarly, “Custodian” has been changed to “Records Custodian” for clarity, and the “Information System Executive” has become the “Corporate Information Security Office” to reflect the new name and role of this functional organization.
Similarly, in revised § 266.2 and throughout these regulations, the Postal Service has revised the titles of certain employees to reflect their new titles. Specifically, “Chief Privacy Officer” was changed to “Chief Privacy and Records Management Officer,” “Senior Vice President, Human Resources” was changed to “Chief Human Resources Officer and Executive Vice President” and “Vice President, General Counsel” was changed to “General Counsel and Executive Vice President.”
In revised § 266.3(b)(3), the Postal Service has defined the limited circumstances in which a mailing list may be disclosed. The Postal Service has also replaced the word “correction” with “amendment” in this section and throughout these regulations.
No substantive changes have been made to revised § 266.4. Minor editorial changes have been made to ensure clarity and consistency of format.
In revised § 266.5(b)(2), the Postal Service has added a list of the acceptable identity verification methods that a requester may use to satisfy a records custodian as to the requester's identity before review or other access to a record containing personal information is granted. The Postal Service has also added a new paragraph 266.5(c) entitled
In revised § 266.6(a)(2), the Postal Service has extended the period in which a requester may file an appeal from 30 days to 90 days.
No substantive changes have been made to revised §§ 266.7-266.9. Minor editorial changes have been made to ensure clarity and consistency of format.
Privacy.
5 U.S.C. 552a; 39 U.S.C. 401.
This part contains the rules that the Postal Service follows under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. These rules should be read together with the Privacy Act, which provides additional information about records maintained on individuals. The rules in this part apply to all records in systems of records maintained by the Postal Service that are retrieved by an individual's name or personal identifier. They describe the procedures by which individuals may request notification of or access to records about themselves, request amendment of those records, and request an accounting of disclosures of those records by the Postal Service. In addition, the Postal Service processes all Privacy Act requests for access to records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, following the rules contained in 39 CFR 265, as necessary, which provides the requester with the greatest access to his or her personal records.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(i) General Counsel and Executive Vice President (Chairman).
(ii) Chief Postal Inspector.
(iii) Inspector General.
(iv) Chief Human Resources Officer and Executive Vice President.
(v) Chief Privacy and Records Management Officer.
(a) This section governs the collection of information about individuals, as
(1) The Postal Service will:
(i) Collect, solicit and maintain only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose authorized by statute or Executive Order.
(ii) Collect information, to the greatest extent practicable, directly from the subject individual when such information may result in adverse determinations about an individual's rights, benefits, or privileges.
(iii) Inform any individuals who have been asked to furnish information about themselves, whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what authority it is being solicited, the principal purposes for which it is intended to be used, the routine uses which may be made of it, and any consequences for the individual, which are known to the Postal Service, which will result from refusal to furnish it.
(2) The Postal Service will not disfavor any individual who fails or refuses to provide personal information unless that information is required or necessary for the conduct of the system or program in which the individual desires to participate.
(3) No information will be collected (or maintained) describing how an individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the information is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.
(4) The Postal Service will not require an individual to furnish a Social Security number or deny a right, privilege or benefit because of that individual's refusal to furnish the number unless required by Federal law.
(b)
(i) The individual to whom the record pertains has requested in writing that the information be disseminated, unless the individual would not be entitled to access to the record under the Postal Reorganization Act, the Privacy Act, or other law;
(ii) The requester has obtained the prior written consent of the individual to whom the record pertains, unless the individual would not be entitled to access to the record under the Postal Reorganization Act, the Privacy Act, or other law; or
(iii) The dissemination is in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2)
(i) To a person pursuant to a requirement of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552);
(ii) To those officers and employees of the Postal Service or employees of a Postal Service contractor who have a need for such information in the performance of their Postal Service duties;
(iii) For a routine use as contained in the system notices published in the
(iv) To a recipient who has provided advance adequate written assurance that the information will be used solely as a statistical reporting or research record, and to whom the information is transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable;
(v) To the Bureau of the Census for purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of title 13 of the U.S. Code;
(vi) To the National Archives and Records Administration as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the U.S. Government, or for evaluation by the Archivist of the United States or an authorized designee to determine whether the record has such value;
(vii) To a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual, if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual;
(viii) To a Federal agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity, if such activity is authorized by law and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the Postal Service specifying the particular portion of the record desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought;
(ix) To either House of Congress or its committees or subcommittees to the extent of matter within their jurisdiction;
(x) To the Comptroller General or any of that officer's authorized representatives in the course of the performance of the duties of the Government Accountability Office; or
(xi) Pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(3) Under 39 U.S.C. 412(a), the Postal Service may make a mailing or other list of names and addresses of past or present postal patrons or other persons available to the public only to the extent that such action is authorized by law. Consistent with this provision, the Postal Service may make such a list available as follows:
(i) In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 412(b), to the Secretary of Commerce for use by the Bureau of the Census;
(ii) As required by the terms of a legally enforceable contract entered into by the Postal Service under its authority contained in 39 U.S.C. 401(3) and when subject to a valid non-disclosure agreement;
(iii) As required by the terms of a legally enforceable interagency agreement entered into by the Postal Service under its authority contained in 39 U.S.C. 411 and when subject to a valid non-disclosure agreement;
(iv) In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), the Postal Service may disclose a list of names and addresses of individuals pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, each individual whose name and address is contained in such list, provided that such names and addresses are derived from records maintained by the Postal Service in a system of records as defined by 5 U.S.C. 552a(a); or
(v) As otherwise expressly authorized by federal law.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(c)
(d)
(2) The accounting will be maintained for at least 5 years or the life of the record, whichever is longer.
(3) The accounting will be made available to the individual named in the record upon inquiry, except for disclosures made pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(viii) of this section relating to law enforcement activities.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) The initiation of any matching activity under a new or substantially revised program; or
(2) The expiration of the existing matching agreement in the case of a renewal of a continuing program.
The purpose of this section is to provide procedures by which an individual may request notification of, access to, or amendment of personal information within a Privacy Act System of Records.
(a)
(2)
(b)
(2)
(i) Provision of a completed
(ii) Provision of official photo identification if the records pertain to the requester, examples of which are a valid driver's license, unexpired passport, and unexpired federal government-issued employee identification card; or
(iii) Provision of a completed
(3)
(i) The requester must agree not to leave Postal Service premises with official records unless specifically given a copy for that purpose by the custodian or the custodian's representative.
(ii) At the conclusion of the inspection, the requester must sign a statement indicating the requester has reviewed specific records or categories of records. If the requester indicates at the beginning of the inspection that he or she will not sign the statement, records may still be reviewed, and the time and date of review will be noted in the file.
(iii) The requester may be accompanied by a person of the requester's choice to aid in the inspection of information and, if applicable, the manual recording or copying of the records if the requester submits a signed statement authorizing the person to do so, and discussion of the records in the accompanying person's presence.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(c)
(d)
(1) Correct or eliminate any information that is found to be incomplete, inaccurate, not relevant to a statutory purpose of the Postal Service, or not timely, and notify the requester when this action is complete; or
(2) Not later than 30 working days after receipt of a request to amend, notify the requester of a determination not to amend, the reason for the refusal, and of the requester's right to appeal, or to submit, in lieu of an appeal, a statement of reasonable length setting forth a position regarding the disputed information to be attached to the contested personal record.
(e)
(a)
(2) The requester must submit an appeal in writing within 90 days of the date of denial, or within 90 days of such request if the appeal is from a failure of the custodian to make a determination. The letter of appeal should include, as applicable:
(i) Reasonable identification of the record to which the requester sought notification, access, or amendment;
(ii) A statement of the Postal Service action or failure to act, and of the relief sought; and
(iii) A copy of the request, of the notification of denial, and of any other related correspondence, if any.
(3) Any record found on appeal to be incomplete, inaccurate, not relevant, or not timely, must be appropriately amended within 30 working days of the date of such findings.
(4) The decision of the General Counsel constitutes the final decision of the Postal Service on the right of the requester to be notified of; inspect, copy, or otherwise have access to; or change or update a record. The decision on the appeal must be in writing and, in the event of a denial, must set forth the reasons for such denial and state the individual's right to obtain judicial review in a district court. An indexed file of decisions on appeals must be maintained by the General Counsel.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(2) The Postal Service may at its discretion make user-paid copy machines available at any location. In that event, requesters will be given the opportunity to make copies at their own expense.
(3) The Postal Service normally will not furnish more than one copy of any record. If duplicate copies are furnished at the request of the requester; a fee of $0.15 per page is charged for each copy
(c)
(d)
(a) The Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. 410(c), provides that certain categories of information are exempt from disclosure under the Privacy Act. In addition, the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), authorizes the Postmaster General to exempt systems of records meeting certain criteria from various other subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a. With respect to systems of records so exempted, nothing in this part shall require compliance with provisions hereof implementing any subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a from which those systems have been exempted.
(b) Paragraph (b)(1) of this section summarizes the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a for which exemption is claimed for some systems of records pursuant to, and to the extent permitted by, 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k). Paragraphs (b)(2) through (5) of this section identify the exempted systems of records, the exemptions applied to each, and the reasons for the exemptions:
(1)
(ii) Subsection (c)(4) requires an agency to inform any person or other agency to which a record has been disclosed of any correction or notation of dispute the agency has made to the record in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(d).
(iii) Subsections (d)(1) through (4) require an agency to permit an individual to gain access to records about the individual, to request amendment of such records, to request a review of an agency decision not to amend such records, and to provide a statement of disagreement about a disputed record to be filed and disclosed with the disputed record.
(iv) Subsection (e)(1) requires an agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose required by statute or executive order of the President.
(v) Subsection (e)(2) requires an agency to collect information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the subject individual when the information may result in adverse determinations about an individual's rights, benefits, and privileges under Federal programs.
(vi) Subsection (e)(3) requires an agency to inform each person whom it asks to supply information of the authority under which the information is sought, the purposes for which the information will be used, the routine uses that may be made of the information, whether disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, and the effects of not providing the information.
(vii) Subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) requires an agency to publish a
(viii) Subsection (e)(5) requires an agency to maintain its records with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to ensure fairness to the individual in making any determination about the individual.
(ix) Subsection (e)(8) requires an agency to make reasonable efforts to serve notice on an individual when any record on such individual is made available to any person under compulsory legal process when such process becomes a matter of public record.
(x) Subsection (f) requires an agency to establish procedures whereby an individual can be notified upon request if any system of records named by the individual contains a record pertaining to the individual, obtain access to the record, and request amendment.
(xi) Subsection (g) provides for civil remedies if an agency fails to comply with the access and amendment provisions of subsections (d)(1) and (3), and with other provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a, or any rule promulgated thereunder, in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual.
(xii) Subsection (m) requires an agency to apply the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a to a contractor operating a system of records to accomplish an agency function.
(2) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), Postal Service record systems;
(i) Disclosure to the record subject pursuant to subsections (c)(3), (c)(4), or (d)(1)-(4) could:
(A) Alert subjects that they are targets of an investigation or mail cover by the Postal Inspection Service or an investigation by the Office of Inspector General;
(B) Alert subjects of the nature and scope of the investigation and of evidence obtained;
(C) Enable the subject of an investigation to avoid detection or apprehension;
(D) Subject confidential sources, witnesses, and law enforcement personnel to harassment or intimidation if their identities were released to the target of an investigation;
(E) Constitute unwarranted invasions of the personal privacy of third parties who are involved in a certain investigation;
(F) Intimidate potential witnesses and make them reluctant to offer information;
(G) Lead to the improper influencing of witnesses, the destruction or alteration of evidence yet to be discovered, the fabrication of testimony, or the compromising of classified material; or
(H) Seriously impede or compromise law enforcement, mail cover, or background investigations that might involve law enforcement aspects as a result of the above.
(ii) Application of subsections (e)(1) and (5) is impractical because the relevance, necessity, or correctness of specific information might be established only after considerable analysis and as the investigation progresses. As to relevance (subsection (e)(1)), effective law enforcement requires the keeping of information not relevant to a specific Postal Inspection Service investigation or Office of Inspector General investigation. Such information may be kept to provide leads for appropriate law enforcement and to establish patterns of activity that might relate to the jurisdiction of the
(iii) Application of subsections (e)(2) and (3) would require collection of information directly from the subject of a potential or ongoing investigation. The subject would be put on alert that he or she is a target of an investigation by the Office of Inspector General, or an investigation or mail cover by the Postal Inspection Service, enabling avoidance of detection or apprehension, thereby seriously compromising law enforcement, mail cover, or background investigations involving law enforcement aspects. Moreover, in certain circumstances the subject of an investigation is not required to provide information to investigators, and information must be collected from other sources.
(iv) The requirements of subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) do not apply because these systems are exempt from the provisions of subsection (d). Nevertheless, the Postal Service has published notice of its notification, access, and contest procedures because access is appropriate in some cases.
(v) Application of subsection (e)(8) could prematurely reveal an ongoing criminal investigation to the subject of the investigation.
(vi) The provisions of subsection (g) do not apply because exemption from the provisions of subsection (d) renders the provisions on suits to enforce subsection (d) inapplicable.
(vii) If one of these systems of records is operated in whole or in part by a contractor, the exemptions claimed herein will remain applicable to it (subsection (m)).
(3) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), Postal Service record systems
(i)
(ii)
(A) Application of the requirements at subsections (d)(1)-(4) would cause disruption of the enforcement of the laws relating to equal employment opportunity (EEO). It is essential to the integrity of the EEO complaint system that information collected in the investigative process not be prematurely disclosed.
(B) The requirements of subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) do not apply for the same reasons described in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
(iii)
(A) Disclosure of the record subject pursuant to subsections (c)(3) and (d)(1)-(4) would violate the non-notification provision of the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. 5318(g)(2), under which the Postal Service is prohibited from notifying a transaction participant that a suspicious transaction report has been made. In addition, the access provisions of subsections (c)(3) and (d)(1)-(4) would alert individuals that they have been identified as suspects or possible subjects of investigation and thus seriously hinder the law enforcement purposes underlying the suspicious transaction reports.
(B) This system is in compliance with subsection (e)(1) because maintenance of the records is required by law. Strict application of the relevance and necessity requirements of subsection (e)(1) to suspicious transactions would be impractical, however, because the relevance or necessity of specific information can often be established only after considerable analysis and as an investigation progresses.
(C) The requirements of subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) and (f) do not apply because this system is exempt from the provisions of subsection (d). Nevertheless, the Postal Service has published notice of its notification, access, and contest procedures because access is appropriate in some cases.
(4) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), Postal Service record systems
(i)
(A) During its investigation and evaluation of an applicant for a position, the Postal Service contacts individuals who, without an assurance of anonymity, would refuse to provide information concerning the subject of the investigation. If a record subject were given access pursuant to subsection (d)(1)-(4), the promised confidentiality would be breached and the confidential source would be identified. The result would be restriction of the free flow of information vital to a determination of an individual's qualifications and suitability for appointment to or continued occupancy of his or her position.
(B) In collecting information for investigative and evaluative purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information might be of assistance in determining the qualifications and suitability of an individual for appointment. Information that seems irrelevant, when linked with other information, can sometimes provide a composite picture of an individual that assists in determining whether that individual should be appointed to or retained in a position. For this reason, exemption from subsection (e)(1) is claimed.
(C) The requirements of subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) do not apply because this system is exempt from the provisions of subsection (d). Nevertheless, the Postal Service has published notice of its notification, access, and contest procedures because access is appropriate in some cases.
(ii)
(5) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), Postal Service record systems
(i) These systems contain questions and answers to standard testing materials, the disclosure of which would compromise the fairness of the future use of these materials. It is not feasible to develop entirely new examinations after each administration as would be necessary if questions or answers were available for inspection and copying. Consequently, exemption from subsection (d) is claimed.
(ii) The requirements of subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) do not apply because these systems are exempt from the provisions of subsection (d). Nevertheless, the Postal Service has published notice of its notification, access, and contest procedures because access is appropriate in some cases.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d
(1)
(i) The purpose and legal authority for conducting the matching program;
(ii) The justification for the program and the anticipated results, including, when appropriate, a specific estimate of any savings in terms of expected costs and benefits, in sufficient detail for the Data Integrity Board to make an informed decision;
(iii) A description of the records that are to be matched, including the data elements to be used, the number of records, and the approximate dates of the matching program;
(iv) Procedures for providing notice to individuals who supply information that the information may be subject to verification through computer matching programs;
(v) Procedures for verifying information produced in a matching program and for providing individuals an opportunity to contest the findings in accordance with the requirement that an agency may not take adverse action against an individual as a result of information produced by a matching program until the agency has independently verified the information and provided the individual with due process;
(vi) Procedures for ensuring the administrative, technical, and physical security of the records matched; for the retention and timely destruction of records created by the matching program; and for the use and return or destruction of records used in the program;
(vii) Prohibitions concerning duplication and redisclosure of records exchanged, except where required by law or essential to the conduct of the matching program;
(viii) Assessments of the accuracy of the records to be used in the matching program; and
(ix) A statement that the Comptroller General may have access to all records of the participant agencies in order to monitor compliance with the agreement.
(2)
(3)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, and incorporating by reference, changes to Oregon's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on April 22, 2015. The changes relate to the criteria pollutants for which the EPA has established national ambient air quality standards—carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Specifically, the changes account for new federal requirements
This final rule is effective November 13, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0333. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kristin Hall, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency—Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-6357; email address:
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
On April 22, 2015, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted revisions to 26 Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) divisions within Chapter 340, and two source sampling and monitoring manuals related to the rules. These changes were effective on April 16, 2015, as a matter of state law. On March 22, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted rule changes (82 FR 14654). Please see our proposed rulemaking for further explanation and the basis of our finding. We note that on April 20, 2017, we received a request from the public for additional time to review the submitted changes and our proposed action. In response to the request, we reopened the comment period on May 30, 2017 for an additional 30 days, closing on June 29, 2017 (82 FR 24621). We received the following comments.
With respect to the commenter's concern that some aspects of Oregon's public comment procedures may be too vague to implement, the commenter cited to only one specific example: That OAR 340-209-0030 does not provide criteria for determining when a public hearing is “necessary.” We note, however, that Oregon's rules, in addition to requiring a public comment period, specifically require that a public hearing be held for all major new source review SIP permitting in attainment and unclassifiable areas (prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)).
We continue to believe that Oregon's public participation rules meet federal requirements for new source review SIP permitting actions and we are therefore finalizing our action.
We are approving, and incorporating by reference, specific rule revisions submitted by Oregon on April 22, 2015. As documented in the submission, we are approving certain of the state rule revisions to also apply in Lane County, because the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission has determined those rules to be more stringent than the corresponding local rules. We are also approving, but not incorporating by reference, specific provisions that provide the ODEQ with authority needed for SIP approval, but that may conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. We note that we are deferring action on our proposed approval of changes to Oregon excess emissions and emergency provisions, OAR 340-214-0300 through 0360, to be addressed in a separate, future action.
Lastly, we are removing repealed rules from Oregon's federally-approved SIP, as requested by the state, because they are obsolete or redundant. We are not taking action on certain rules that are inconsistent with CAA requirements or that are inappropriate for SIP approval because they are not related to the criteria pollutants regulated under title I of the CAA, not essential for meeting and maintaining the NAAQS, or not related to the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA.
We are approving into the Oregon SIP, and incorporating by reference at 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM, the submitted revisions to Chapter 340 of the OAR listed below, state effective April 16, 2015:
• Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0035);
• Division 202—Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments (0010, 0020, 0050, 0070, 0100, 0130, 0200, 0210, 0220, 0225);
• Division 204—Designation of Air Quality Areas (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 0080, 0090, 0300, 0310, 0320);
• Division 206—Air Pollution Emergencies (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 8010, 8020, 8030, 8040);
• Division 208—Visible Emissions and Nuisance Requirements (0005, 0010, 0110, 0210);
• Division 209—Public Participation (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 0080);
• Division 210—Stationary Source Notification Requirements (0010, 0020, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0205, 0215, 0225, 0230, 0240, 0250);
• Division 212—Stationary Source Testing and Monitoring (0005, 0010, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150);
• Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0005, 0010, 0100, 0110, 0114, 0130, 0200, 0210, 0220);
• Division 216—Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0040, 0052, 0054, 0056, 0060, 0062, 0064, 0066, 0068, 0070, 0082, 0084, 0090, 0094, 8010, 8020);
• Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0010, 0020, 0030, 0035, 0040, 0041, 0042, 0046, 0048, 0051, 0055, 0080, 0090);
• Division 224—New Source Review (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0034, 0038, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0055, 0060, 0070, 0245, 0250, 0255, 0260, 0270, 0500, 0510—except paragraph (3), 0520, 0530, 0540);
• Division 225—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0060, 0070);
• Division 226—General Emissions Standards (0005, 0010, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0210, 0310, 0320, 0400, 8010);
• Division 228—Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content (0010, 0020, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0200, 0210);
• Division 232—Emission Standards for VOC Point Sources (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0080, 0085, 0090, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0160, 0170, 0180, 0190, 0200, 0210, 0220, 0230);
• Division 234—Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries (0005, 0010 except (8) and (10), 0100, 0140, 0200, 0210—except (1), 0220—except (2), 0240—except (1), 0250—except (1) and (2), 0270, 0500, 0510, 0520, 0530, 0540);
• Divisions 236—Emission Standards for Specific Industries (0005, 0010, 0400, 0410, 0420, 0440, 8010);
• Division 240—Rules for Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs (0010, 0020, 0030, 0050, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0160, 0180, 0190, 0210, 0220, 0250, 0300, 0320, 0330, 0340, 0350, 0360, 0400, 0410, 0420, 0430, 0440, 0510, 0550, 0560, 0610);
• Division 242—Rules Applicable to the Portland Area (0400, 0410, 0420, 0430, 0440, 0600, 0610, 0620, 0630);
• Division 262—Heat Smart Program for Residential Woodstoves and Other Solid Fuel Heating Devices (0450);
• Division 264—Rules for Open Burning (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 0075, 0078, 0080, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0160, 0170, 0175, 0180); and
• Division 268—Emission Reduction Credits (0010, 0020, 0030).
• Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0020);
• Division 202—Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments (0050);
• Division 204—Designation of Air Quality Areas (0300, 0310, 0320);
• Division 208—Visible Emissions and Nuisance Requirements (0110, 0210);
• Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0114)(5);
• Division 216—Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (0040, 8010);
• Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0090);
• Division 224—New Source Review (0030, 0530);
• Division 225—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0060, 0070);
• Division 226—General Emissions Standards (0210); and
• Division 228—Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content (0210).
We are approving, but not incorporating by reference, the following provisions:
• ODEQ Source Sampling Manual, Volumes I and II, April 2015 (for purposes of the limits approved into the SIP);
• ODEQ Continuous Emissions Monitoring Manual, April 2015 (for purposes of the limits approved into the SIP);
• ODEQ-LRAPA Stringency Analysis and Directive, Attachment B; and
• Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0100, 0110, 0120).
We are removing the following sections from the Oregon SIP because they have been repealed, replaced by rules noted in paragraph A above, or the state has asked that they be removed:
• Division 208—Visible Emissions and Fugitive Emissions Requirements (0100, 0200);
• Division 212—Compliance Assurance Monitoring (0200, 0210, 0220, 0230, 0240, 0250, 0260, 0270, 0280);
• Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0400, 0410, 0420, 0430);
• Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emissions Limits (0043, 0045, 0070);
• Division 224—New Source Review (0080, 0100);
• Division 225—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0090);
• Division 226—General Emission Standards (0200);
• Division 228—Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content (0400, 0410, 0420, 0430, 0440, 0450, 0460, 0470, 0480, 0490, 0500, 0510, 0520, 0530);
• Division 234—Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries (0300, 0310, 0320, 0330, 0340, 0350, 0360, 0400, 0410, 0420, 0430);
• Division 236—Emission Standards for Specific Industries (0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0200, 0210, 0220, 0230, 0430);
• Division 240—Rules for Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs (0170, 0230, 0310);
• Division 242—Rules Applicable to the Portland Areas (0700, 0710, 0720, 0730, 0740, 0750, 0760, 0770, 0780, 0790); and
• Division 264—Rules for Open Burning (0190).
For the reasons stated above, we are not incorporating the following revised provisions into the Oregon SIP because they are inappropriate for SIP approval under section 110, title I of the CAA:
• Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0050) (compliance schedules);
• Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0060) (hazardous air pollutants);
• Division 224—New Source Review (0510(3)) (fine particulate matter inter-pollutant offset ratios); and
• Division 234—Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries (0010(8) and (10), 0210(1), 0220(2), 0240(1), 0250 (1) and (2)) (total reduced sulfur and odor).
• Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0300, 0310, 0320, 0330, 0340, 0350, 0360) (excess emissions and emergency provisions).
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference as described in Section III above, and the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
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.
Oregon Revised Statute 468.126, prohibits the ODEQ from imposing a penalty for violation of an air, water or solid waste permit unless the source has been provided five days' advanced written notice of the violation and has not come into compliance or submitted a compliance schedule within that five-day period. By its terms, the statute does not apply to Oregon's title V program or to any program if application of the notice provision would disqualify the program from federal delegation. Oregon has previously confirmed that, because application of the notice provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP, no advance notice is required for violation of SIP requirements.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; 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 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
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
(a) The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality rules for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (provisions of OAR Chapter 340, Divisions 200, 202, 209, 212, 216, 222, 224 (except 0510(3) inter-pollutant offset ratios), 225, and 268, as in effect on April 16, 2015, are approved as meeting the requirements of title I, part C, subpart I of the Clean Air Act for preventing significant deterioration of air quality.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of a portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) submission from the State of California regarding Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) requirements for ambient ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”). The SIP submission is intended to revise a portion of the State's “infrastructure” SIP that, more broadly, provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the standards.
This rule is effective on November 13, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0265. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3227,
Throughout this document, “we”, “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On August 24, 2016, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the “Staff Report, [C]ARB Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard” (“2016 CARB Staff Report”).
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within a shorter period that the EPA may prescribe. The EPA refers to such SIP submissions as “infrastructure SIPs.” This final rule pertains to infrastructure SIP requirements for ambient air quality monitoring.
On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the form and levels of the primary and secondary ozone standards to an 8-hour average of 0.08 parts per million (ppm).
Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA requires states to provide for the establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitoring to (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data, and (ii) make data available to the EPA Administrator upon request. For the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS, the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area includes several MSAs and one Combined Statistical Area.
California made SIP submissions in 2007 and 2014 to, among other things, address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) and the EPA's implementing regulations for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA approved the submissions with respect to the ambient monitoring requirements with one exception:
CARB had operated an ozone monitor at the Arvin-Bear Mountain Boulevard site for 20 years, and the highest ozone concentrations in the Bakersfield MSA generally occurred at this site or the Edison site (
Based on the 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP, CARB's 2016 site relocation request,
The underlying basis of the EPA's 2014 disapproval has been adequately resolved via the approved site relocation for the maximum ozone concentration site in the Bakersfield MSA. Accordingly, the EPA is fully approving the 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act.
In addition, the EPA previously approved an ozone emergency episode plan from El Dorado County APCD as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS.
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,
• 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(496) The following plan was submitted on August 24, 2016, by the Governor's Designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii)
(
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from the State of Missouri for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM
This direct final rule will be effective December 11, 2017, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 13, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0513, to
Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA is approving the revision as meeting the submittal requirement of section 110(a)(1). EPA is approving elements of the infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri received on October 14, 2015. Specifically, EPA is approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M). EPA intends to act on elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), interfering with maintenance of the NAAQs (prong 2) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—protection of visibility (prong 4) in subsequent rulemakings. EPA is taking no action section 110(a)(2)(I). EPA is also approving the state's request to include Missouri State Statute section 105.483(5) RSMo 2014, and Missouri State Statute section 105.485 RSMo 2014 into the SIP. These two statutes address aspects of the infrastructure requirements relating to conflicts of interest as found in section 128 of the CAA.
A Technical Support Document (TSD) is included as part of this docket to discuss the details of this action, including analysis of how the SIP meets the applicable 110 requirements for infrastructure SIPs.
The state's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state held a public comment period from July 27, 2015, to September 03, 2015. The state received no comments during the public comment period. A public hearing was held on August 27, 2015. The submission satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. As explained in more detail in the TSD, which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
EPA is approving elements of the October 14, 2015, infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2012 Annual PM
Section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as nonattainment areas, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of the CAA, relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment areas. EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address element (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur Dioxides.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of certain State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by Utah on January 4, 2016, and of certain revisions submitted on January 19, 2017, for the coarse particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on November 13, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0298. All documents in the docket are listed on the
James Hou, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6210,
Under the 1990 amendments to the CAA, Salt Lake and Utah Counties were designated nonattainment for PM
On January 4, 2016, Utah submitted SIP revisions to R307-110-17 titled “Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part H, Emission Limits” and revisions to Subsection IX.H.1-4. The titles for Subsection IX.H.1-4 include: (1) General Requirements: Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Emission Limits and Operating Practices, PM
On July 13, 2017 (82 FR 32287), the EPA proposed to approve certain SIP revisions to the Salt Lake County and Utah County NAA Moderate area SIPs submitted by the State. Our proposed notice provides details on the EPA's evaluation of the State's submittals. The submittals dated January 4, 2016, and January 19, 2017, contained revisions to the Utah DAR, Title R307—Environmental Quality, set of rules, and SIP subsection IX.H.1-4.
The EPA did not receive any comments on the July 13, 2017 proposed action.
For the reasons stated in our proposed notice, the EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to Administrative Rule R307-110-17 and revisions to Subsection IX.H.1-4 for incorporation into the Utah SIP as submitted by the State of Utah on January 4, 2016, and January 19, 2017. These revisions establish emissions limitations and related requirements for certain stationary sources of PM
The specific emission limits and operating practices the EPA is finalizing for approval are listed in the following tables:
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 Division of Administrative 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 CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Do not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Do not provide 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 does not 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 final 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
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organization compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revision reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from the State of Missouri for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
This direct final rule will be effective December 11, 2017, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 13, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0268, to
Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA is approving the revision as meeting the submittal requirement of section 110(a)(1). EPA is approving elements of the infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri received on April 30, 2013. Specifically, EPA is approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A) Through (H) (except (D)(i)(II)-protection of visibility (prong 4)), and (J) through (M). EPA is not acting on section 110(a)(2)(I) as it does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address the element. EPA will act on prong 4 in a separate action. A Technical Support Document (TSD) is included in this docket to discuss the details of this action, including analysis of how the SIP meets the applicable 110 requirements for infrastructure SIPs.
The state's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state held a public hearing on March 28, 2013 and a public comment period from February 25, 2013 to April 4, 2013. EPA provided comments to the state on April 3, 2013, and were the only commenters. The state revised its proposed SIP in response to EPA's comments and the revisions were contained in the SIP submitted to EPA on April 30, 2013. The submission satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. As explained in more detail in the TSD, which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve elements of the April 30, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 NO
Section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as nonattainment areas, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of the CAA, relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment areas. EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address element (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.
We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission modifies the Table of Frequency Allocations (Allocations Table) in of its rules, as well as modifying four of its rules, to conform them to the results of the broadcast television incentive auction. This action ensures that the Commission's rules accurately reflect revisions that occurred because of that auction.
Effective November 13, 2017.
Tom Mooring, Office of Engineering and
This is a summary of the Commission's Order, GN Docket No. 12-268, DA 17-887, adopted September 11, 2017, and released September 13, 2017. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at:
1. In the
2. The April 13, 2017
3. Based on the results of the incentive auction, we hereby modify the Allocations Table. Specifically, we delete the primary fixed and mobile service allocations and part 27 cross reference from the 512-608 MHz band and return the band to its pre-auction allocation status. We also revise the entries for the 614-698 MHz band by deleting the primary broadcasting service allocation and removing the part 73 cross reference to account for post-auction fixed and mobile use by 600 MHz service wireless licensees that will operate under part 27 of the rules and new footnote NG33. This change reflects use of these frequencies for broadcasting during and after the 39-month post-auction transition period as discussed below. In addition, we revise the text of three non-Federal Government footnotes (NG5, NG14, and NG149) that provide for limited flexible use of the television broadcast bands, including the 614-698 MHz band, by providing a cross reference to new footnote NG33.
4. To fully account for the various licensed services and unlicensed devices that will operate in the 614-698 MHz band during and after the transition, we add new footnote NG33 to the Allocations Table. Pursuant to the Commission's direction, the footnote authorizes operations of: (1) Full power and Class A television stations on a primary basis in the 614-698 MHz band (
5. Based on the results of the incentive auction, we also modify four rules in part 27. We revise section 27.1(b)(14) to replace a generic reference to the 470-698 MHz UHF band with a specific reference to “617-652 MHz and 663-698 MHz,” to follow the 600 MHz Band Plan and be consistent with the way the rule is structured. We also modify section 27.5, which lists available frequencies, channel blocks, and geographic areas of licensing, by revising paragraph (l) to state that the 600 MHz Band (for the 600 MHz service) consists of seven pairs of 5 megahertz channel blocks available for assignment on a Partial Economic Area basis, and to identify the frequencies associated with blocks A through G. Section 27.6 specifies the Partial Economic Areas for each of the frequency bands and channel blocks listed in section 27.5. We revise the text of 27.6(l) to reference additional details recently provided by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau about licensing in the 600 MHz band by Partial Economic Areas. Lastly, we revise section 27.11(k) to specify the 600 MHz Band (
6. We conclude that there is good cause for not employing the prior notice and comment procedure specified in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in this case. The rule modifications here implement the Commission's prior rulemaking decisions issued following notice-and-comment procedures in the incentive auction proceeding with respect to the 600 MHz Band and the end date of the post-auction transition period. These specific frequency bands and dates were not known until the close of the incentive auction on April 13, 2017 with the release of the
7. We take this action to modify the Allocations Table and to make conforming amendments to the rules under authority expressly delegated by the Commission in the
8. Because this Order is being adopted without notice and comment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply.
9. The rules contained herein have been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found to contain no new or modified form, information collection, and/or recordkeeping, labeling, disclosure, or record retention requirements, and will not increase or decrease burden hours imposed on the public. In addition, therefore, this Order does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
10. The Commission will send a copy of the Order in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
11. Accordingly,
Telecommunications.
Communications equipment.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends parts 2 and 27 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
NG5 In the band 535-1705 kHz, AM broadcast licensees and permittees may use their AM carrier on a secondary basis to transmit signals intended for both broadcast and non-broadcast purposes. In the band 88-108 MHz, FM broadcast licensees and permittees are permitted to use subcarriers on a secondary basis to transmit signals intended for both broadcast and non-broadcast purposes. In the bands 54-72, 76-88, 174-216, 470-608, and 614-698 MHz, TV broadcast licensees and permittees are permitted to use subcarriers on a secondary basis for both broadcast and non-broadcast purposes. Use of the band 614-698 MHz is subject to the provisions specified in NG33.
NG14 TV broadcast stations authorized to operate in the bands 54-72, 76-88, 174-216, 470-608, and 614-698 MHz may use a portion of the television vertical blanking interval for the transmission of telecommunications signals, on the condition that harmful interference will not be caused to the reception of primary services, and that such telecommunications services must accept any interference caused by primary services operating in these bands. Use of the band 614-698 MHz is subject to the provisions specified in NG33.
NG33 In the band 614-698 MHz, the following provisions shall apply:
(a) Until July 13, 2020, stations in the broadcasting service and other authorized uses may operate as follows:
(1) Full power and Class A television (TV) stations,
(2) Low power TV (LPTV) and TV translator stations may operate on a secondary basis to stations in the fixed and mobile services and to broadcast TV stations, and fixed TV broadcast auxiliary stations may operate on a secondary basis to LPTV and TV translator stations, unless such stations are required to terminate their operations earlier in accordance with § 73.3700(g)(4) or § 74.602(h)(5)-(6).
(3) Low power auxiliary stations (LPAS), including wireless assist video devices (WAVDs), may operate on a secondary basis to all other authorized stations in accordance with § 74.802(f) and § 74.870(i).
(4) Unlicensed wireless microphones and white space devices (WSDs) may operate on a non-interference basis, unless such devices are required to terminate operations earlier in accordance with § 15.236(c)(2) or § 15.707(a)(1)-(2), (5), respectively.
(b) After July 13, 2020, only the following types of radiofrequency devices that are authorized in paragraph (a) may continue to operate:
(1) LPTV and TV translator stations may operate on a secondary basis to stations in the fixed and mobile services in the sub-bands 617-652 MHz and 663-698 MHz until required to terminate their operations in accordance with § 73.3700(g)(4).
(2) LPAS may operate in the sub-band 653-657 MHz and unlicensed wireless microphones may operate in the sub-bands 614-616 MHz and 657-663 MHz.
(3) WSDs may operate in: (i) The sub-bands 617-652 MHz and 663-698 MHz, except in those areas where their use is prohibited in accordance with §§ 15.707(a)(5) and 15.713(b)(2)(iv), and (ii) the sub-band 657-663 MHz, in accordance with § 15.707(a)(4).
NG149 The bands 54-72, 76-88, 174-216, 470-608, and 614-698 MHz are also allocated to the fixed service to permit subscription television operations in accordance with 47 CFR part 73. Use of the band 614-698 MHz is subject to the provisions specified in NG33.
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452, unless otherwise noted.
(b) * * *
(14) 617-652 MHz and 663-698 MHz.
(l)
(l)
(k)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's network change disclosure rules pertaining to copper retirement notices. This document is consistent with the
The amendment to 47 CFR 51.329(c)(1) published at 81 FR 62632, September 12, 2016, is effective on October 11, 2017.
Michele Levy Berlove, Attorney Advisor, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1477, or by email at
This document announces that, on January 17, 2017, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the network change disclosure rules contained in the Commission's
The OMB Control Number is 3060-0741. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room A-C620, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0741, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on January 17, 2017, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 51. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0741.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for commercial king mackerel in the western zone of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) through this temporary rule. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for king mackerel in the western zone of the Gulf EEZ will be reached by October 7, 2017. Therefore, NMFS closes the western zone of the Gulf EEZ to commercial king mackerel fishing on October 7, 2017. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf king mackerel resource.
The closure is effective at noon, local time, October 7, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 1, 2018.
Kelli O'Donnell, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights for Gulf king mackerel below apply as either round or gutted weight.
On April 11, 2017, NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendment 26 to the FMP in the
The western zone of Gulf king mackerel is located in the EEZ between a line extending east from the border of the United States and Mexico, and 87°31.1′ W. long., which is a line extending south from the state boundary of Alabama and Florida. The western zone includes the EEZ off Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
Regulations at 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1)(i) require NMFS to close the commercial sector for Gulf king mackerel in the western zone when the commercial quota is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined the commercial quota of 1,136,000 lb (515,281 kg) for Gulf king mackerel in the western zone will be reached by October 7, 2017. Accordingly, the western zone is closed to commercial fishing for Gulf king mackerel effective at noon, local time, October 7, 2017, through June 30, 2018, the end of the current fishing year.
During the closure, a person on board a vessel that has been issued a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for coastal migratory pelagic fish may continue to retain the king mackerel in the western zone under the recreational bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.382(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2), as long as the recreational sector for Gulf king mackerel in the western zone is open (50 CFR 622.384(e)(1)).
Also during the closure, king mackerel from the closed zone, including those harvested under the bag and possession limits, may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to king mackerel from the closed zone that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor (50 CFR 622.384(e)(2)).
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.384(e) and 622.388(a)(1)(i), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the commercial quota and the associated AM has already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Additionally, allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the king mackerel stock, because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amount of Pacific cod from catcher vessels equal to or greater than 60 feet (18.3 meters) length overall (LOA) using pot gear to catcher/processors using pot gear and catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. This action is necessary to allow the 2017 total allowable catch of Pacific cod to be harvested.
Effective October 6, 2017, through 2400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2017.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2017 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) specified for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet LOA using pot gear in the BSAI is 17,889 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017).
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet LOA using pot gear will not be able to harvest 2,500 mt of the remaining 2017 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(
The harvest specifications for Pacific cod included in the final 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) and two inseason adjustments (82 FR 8905, February 1, 2017 and 82 FR 41899, September 5, 2017) are revised as follows: 15,389 mt for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot gear, 4,194 mt for C/Ps using pot gear, and 9,071 mt for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Pacific cod specified from catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot gear to C/Ps using pot gear and catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI management area. Since these fisheries are currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 28, 2017.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
On August 17, 2017, the Board published in the
The comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking published on August 17, 2017 (82 FR 39049), is extended. Comments on the proposal must be received on or before November 30, 2017.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments by following the instructions for submitting comments at
•
•
•
•
All public comments will be made available on the Board's Web site at
Richard Naylor, Associate Director, (202) 728-5854, Vaishali Sack, Manager, (202) 452-5221, April Snyder, Manager, (202) 452-3099, Bill Charwat, Senior Project Manager, (202) 452-3006, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Scott Tkacz, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-2744, or Christopher Callanan, Senior Attorney, (202) 452-3594, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869.
On August 17, 2017, the Board published in the
In recognition of the range of issues addressed and the variety of considerations involved with implementing the proposal, the Board requested that commenters respond to a number of questions. The proposal stated that the public comment period would close on October 16, 2017.
The Board believes that the additional period for comment will facilitate public comment on the provisions of the proposal and the questions posed by the Board. Therefore, the Board is extending the end of the comment period for the proposal from October 16, 2017, to November 30, 2017.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is reopening for an additional 60 days the comment period for Notice No. 165, Proposed Addition of New Grape Variety Names for American Wines, a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the
The comment period for the proposed rule published on November 17, 2016 (81 FR 81023) is reopened for 60 days. Written comments on Notice No. 165 are now due on or before December 11, 2017.
Please send your comments on Notice No. 165 to one of the following addresses:
•
•
•
See the Public Participation section of Notice No. 165 for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing.
You may view copies of this document, Notice No. 165, and any comments made to TTB about the described proposals at
Jennifer Berry, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Rulings Division; telephone 202-453-1039, ext. 275.
In Notice No. 165, a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the
During the original comment period, TTB received three requests to extend the comment period. The first request came from the National Association of Beverage Importers (NABI), an alcohol beverage industry trade association, and requested a 60-day extension of the comment period for Notice No. 165. In its request, NABI noted that Notice No. 165 was issued during the busy holiday season when many compliance personnel took vacation time, and it noted that the proposed list of 51 new grape variety names includes terms that appear as brand names on various beverage alcohol products. The NABI request stated that its members require additional time “to assure that potential conflicts, confusion, misunderstanding or other issues are brought to the attention of TTB.” The NABI comment is posted as Comment 5 within Docket No. TTB-2016-0011 on the
The second request was submitted on behalf of the French Federation of Wine and Spirits Exporters (FEVS), and it also requested a 60-day extension of the comment period for Notice No. 165 (see Comment 9). The FEVS comment noted that it was unable to gather enough information to comment on the proposals in Notice No. 165, including the proposed addition of Esprit to the approved list of grape names “due to an extended holiday season.” The comment stated that FEVS required additional time to finalize its research of the COLA database and to bring to TTB's attention any potential conflicts between Esprit as an approved grape name and common terms used in wine brand or fanciful names.
The third request was submitted by the law firm of Dickerson, Peatman and Fogarty on behalf of “certain French wine producers that sell wine into the U.S. under a brand or fanciful name that includes the word “Esprit” (see Comment 18). The comment added that these producers only recently became aware of the proposed addition of Esprit to the list of approved grape names for American wines and are concerned that such action may adversely impact their intellectual property rights and ability to sell their wine in the U.S. The commenter, therefore, requested an extension of the comment period but did not specify a time period.
In response to these requests, TTB is reopening the comment period for Notice No. 165 for an additional 60 days. TTB believes that an additional 60-day comment period will allow all interested parties to fully consider the impact of the new grape varietal names for American wines proposed in Notice No. 165.
Therefore, comments on Notice No. 165 are now due on or before December 11, 2017. Comments on Notice No. 165 may be submitted as described above in the
Michael Hoover of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this document.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is reopening for an additional 90 days the comment period for Notice No. 160, Proposed Revisions to Wine Labeling and Recordkeeping Requirements, a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the
The comment period for the proposed rule published on June 22, 2016 (81 FR 40584) is reopened for 90 days. Written comments on Notice No. 160 are now due on or before January 9, 2018.
Please send your comments on Notice No. 160 to one of the following addresses:
•
•
•
See the Public Participation section of Notice No. 160 for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing.
You may view copies of this document, Notice Nos. 160 and 160A, and any comments made to TTB about the described proposals at
Jennifer Berry, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Rulings Division; telephone (202) 453-1039, ext. 275.
In Notice No. 160, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposed to amend its labeling and recordkeeping regulations in 27 CFR part 24 to provide that any standard grape wine containing 7 percent or more alcohol by volume that is covered by a certificate of exemption from label approval may be labeled with a varietal (grape type) designation, a type designation of varietal significance, a vintage date, or an appellation of origin only if the wine is labeled in compliance with the standards set forth in the appropriate sections of 27 CFR part 4 for that label information. TTB also proposed to amend its part 4 wine labeling regulations to include a reference to the new part 24 requirement. The 60-day comment period for Notice No. 160 originally closed on August 22, 2016.
On September 8, 2016, TTB published Notice No. 160A to reopen the comment period for an additional 90 days. This action was taken in response to requests received from two wine industry trade associations, Wine Institute and the California Association of Winegrape Growers, who stated that their membership was preoccupied with the grape harvest and thus needed additional time to assess the proposal contained in Notice No. 160 (see comments 7 and 41). Based on comments received up to that point, TTB also requested comments regarding whether any geographic reference to the source of the grapes used in the wine could be included on a wine label in a way that would not be misleading with regard to the source of the wine. The reopened comment period closed December 7, 2016.
A number of commenters responded to TTB's request in Notice No. 160A for comments on whether any geographic references to the source of the grapes used in a wine could be included on the label in a way that would not be misleading. Some of the proposals received suggest that geographic references could be included in such a way. Suggestions included proposals that TTB allow the following type of statements on wine labels:
• __% of grapes grown in ____ [location], Produced and Bottled in ____ [location].
• “Grapes sourced in California.”
• The use of American viticultural area (AVA) names modified by “grapes” (
The most detailed proposal was submitted in a joint comment by Napa Valley Vintners and Wine Institute, posted as Comment 108 within Docket No. TTB-2016-0005 at
Their proposal has four main components:
• TTB should adopt Notice No. 160 in its entirety so that all wines identified with an AVA name or appellation of origin are subject to the same Federal standards.
• Grape source information (which they state is distinct from appellations) could be allowed on the label as optional information if it includes all of the following: (1) The name of the county or counties and State or States, or just the State(s), where all of the grapes are grown. County names must be identified with the word “county” in the same type size and in letters as conspicuous as the name of the county; (2) The percentage of wine derived from grapes grown in each county or State shown on the label, with a tolerance of +\− 2 percent; and (3) The city and State, or just the State, where the wine was fully finished.
• Grape source information should not contain any reference to an AVA name or a name of viticultural significance or a confusingly similar name, other than a county or a State. In their example, a label could disclose the grape source as “Napa County, California,” but it could not include a claim that the grapes are from “Napa Valley,” which is an AVA name.
• Wines labeled with grape source information must be labeled with the “United States” country appellation of origin pursuant to 27 CFR 4.25(a)(1)(i). Use of this country appellation gives wineries the ability to include a vintage date and variety designation on their labels while at the same time signaling to consumers that the wine does not meet the Federal requirements for State, county, or AVA appellation of origin designations.
While the comment specifically addressed wines covered by certificates of exemption from label approval, it is unclear to TTB if this alternative proposal would also apply to wines subject to the labeling requirements of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and labeled under a certificate of label approval.
In addition to the proposals discussed above, TTB received seven comments requesting an additional extension of the comment period for Notice No. 160. Six of these request an additional 90 days to comment, while the seventh
In response to the requests to extend the comment period, TTB is reopening the comment period for Notice No. 160 for an additional 90 days. We believe that 90 days will provide industry members and the public with the additional time necessary to fully consider both the original proposal put forth in Notice No. 160 and the alternative proposals discussed above. Therefore, comments on Notice No. 160 are now due to TTB on or before January 9, 2018.
In addition to comments on the alternative proposals discussed above, TTB is interested in comments that address whether the alternative proposals should apply only to wines labeled under certificates of exemption for label approval, or if they should also apply to wines labeled under certificates of label approval, in which case corresponding amendments to the labeling regulations in part 4 would be necessary. TTB is also interested in comments regarding whether these proposals should apply to non-grape wines. Please provide specific information in support of your comments.
Comments on the original proposal put forth in Notice No. 160 and the alternative proposals discussed above may be submitted electronically via the online comment form for this document, Notice No. 160B, as posted within Docket No. TTB-2016-0005 at “
Jennifer Berry of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this document.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is reopening for an additional 90 days the comment period for Notice No. 164, Wine Treating Materials and Related Regulations, a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the
The comment period for the proposed rule published on November 22, 2016 (81 FR 83752) is reopened for 90 days. Written comments on Notice No. 164 are now due on or before January 9, 2018.
Please send your comments on Notice No. 164 to one of the following addresses:
•
•
•
See the Public Participation section of Notice No. 164 for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing.
You may view copies of this document, Notice No. 164, and any comments made to TTB about the described proposals at
Kara Fontaine, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone (202) 453-1039, ext. 103.
In Notice No. 164, a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the
On December 27, 2016, TTB received a letter from the Wine Institute, a large wine industry trade association based in San Francisco, California, requesting a six-month extension of the comment period on the wine treating materials and other regulatory amendments proposed in Notice No. 164. In its letter, the Wine Institute stated that its members required additional time to consider the “complex, highly technical proposal” contained in Notice No. 164, as well as the document's request for input on other regulatory issues. The Wine Institute also noted that TTB's proposal was published during the busy holiday season, and that it required additional time to reach out to its members and other wine industry trade associations to discuss how best to respond to Notice No. 164. The Wine Institute letter is posted as Comment 3 to Notice No. 164 within Docket No. TTB-2016-0010 on the
On January 9, 2017, TTB received a letter from Laffort USA, a producer of wine treating materials, which also
In response to these requests, TTB is reopening the comment period for Notice No. 164 for an additional 90 days. TTB notes that the wine treating materials discussed in the regulatory amendments in Notice No. 164 have been previously approved administratively for use by wine industry members in the treatment of their wine. TTB believes that a 90-day reopening of the comment period for Notice No. 164 will allow all interested parties to fully consider the regulatory amendments proposed in that document.
Therefore, comments on Notice No. 164 are now due to TTB on or before January 9, 2018. Comments on Notice No. 164 may be submitted as described above in the
Michael Hoover of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this document.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is initiating a proceeding to explore enhancements to the Postal Service's data systems and to facilitate the development of consistent reporting requirements. 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.
The Commission initiates this proceeding to explore potential enhancements to the Postal Service's data systems and to facilitate the development of consistent reporting requirements. These data enhancements and reporting requirements will be used to measure, track, and report the cost and service performance issues concerning flat-shaped mailpieces (flats).
In the FY 2015 ACD, the Commission identified and analyzed six “pinch points” that contribute to cost and service issues for flats:
Using data available at the time, the Commission identified and discussed flats cost and/or service issues for each individual pinch point.
The Commission directed the Postal Service to identify a method to measure, track, and report the cost and service performance issues relating to each individual pinch point identified by the Commission at the most granular level practicable.
The Postal Service responded to the Commission's Chapter 6 directive on July 26, 2016.
Although the Postal Service discussed its data systems and proposed metrics for certain pinch points, the Postal Service did not explain how it will use this information to report on issues relating to flats. The Commission finds that measuring various cost and service impacts associated with flats will provide greater insight into the issues. Tracking these issues over time will assist the Commission and the Postal Service with developing solutions to reduce cost and improve service performance of flats. Reporting on these measures and tracking will enhance the transparency and ability of stakeholders with vested interests to participate in the development of a plan to improve flats cost and service issues.
At this stage in the docket, and given the information already provided by the Postal Service, the Commission seeks to better understand the data collected by the Postal Service and the capabilities of the systems that collect that data. In the information request filed along with this Order, the Commission requests that the Postal Service provide additional information about certain data systems and reports. The information request seeks, among other things, information about the capabilities of the data systems, information about planned improvements to the data systems, and ideas as to how certain data systems could be used to measure the impact on flats costs and service performance issues. The Commission also requests certain summary data reports that are available from the various data systems. Responses to the information request should be submitted no later than 60 days from the date of this Order. If the Postal Service identifies any other data or information that would be helpful to the goal of measuring cost and service impacts on flats, the Postal Service should also submit it with the requested information.
Once the information is received and analyzed, the Commission intends to schedule a technical conference to review the data submitted by the Postal Service and to better understand the capabilities of the Postal Service's systems. As explained above, the Commission intends to use information provided by the Postal Service in this proceeding to develop a detailed proposal of data enhancements and reporting requirements for consideration in this docket. The Commission will invite public comment on the detailed proposal before adopting any final rule. The Commission anticipates that this information will lead to the development of measureable goals to decrease the costs and improve the service performance of flats.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2018-1 to explore data enhancements and to facilitate the development of consistent reporting requirements that will be used to evaluate the cost and service performance issues associated with flats.
2. Responses to the Commission Information Request No. 1, in this docket, should be provided 60 days from the date of this Order.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Katalin K. Clendenin 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 elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from the State of Missouri for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM
Comments must be received by November 13, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0513, to
Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at
This document proposes to take action on State of Missouri Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 Annual PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from the State of Missouri for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
Comments must be received by November 13, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0268, to
Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at
This document proposes to take action on the State of Missouri Infrastructure SIP revision for the 2010 NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Golden Valley Organics, Inc. (dba) BioWest Ag Solutions of Nampa, Idaho, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 9,414,602, “PSEUDOMONAS FLUORESCENS INHIBIT ANNUAL BLUEGRASS AND ROUGH BLUEGRASS ROOT GROWTH AND GERMINATION”, issued on August 16, 2016.
Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2017.
Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Golden Valley Organics, Inc. (dba) BioWest Ag Solutions of Nampa, Idaho has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by November 13, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
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 (FACA) that a meeting of the Alaska Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 12:00 p.m. (Alaska Time) Thursday, October 19, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to discuss advisory memorandum and report writing schedule and debrief testimonies shared at the Alaska Native voting rights briefing.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, October 19, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. AKDT.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-500-0920, conference ID number: 3399712. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. 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 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 entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed to Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the twelfth administrative review (AR) of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture (WBF) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. This AR covers 13 companies, including one mandatory respondent, Decca Furniture Ltd. (Decca). The Department has preliminarily determined that four of the 13 companies, including Decca, have not established their entitlement to a separate rate and are part of the PRC-wide entity. The Department has also preliminarily determined that eight companies had no reviewable transactions during the POR. The Department has also rescinded the review for Nanhai Jiantai Woodwork Co., Ltd., Fortune Glory Industrial, Ltd. (HK Ltd.) (collectively, Fortune Glory), for whom all review requests have been withdrawn. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 11, 2017.
Patrick O'Connor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0989.
After initiating this review with respect to 80 companies or company groupings,
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 product covered by the Order is wooden bedroom furniture, subject to certain exceptions.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.213. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results of review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is provided in the Appendix to this notice.
Because CBP did not provide any information contradicting the claims of the eight companies under review which claimed to have made no shipments, the Department preliminarily determines that these eight companies did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR.
Because Decca was the only company under review that submitted a separate rate application, the Department selected Decca as the sole mandatory respondent in this review. As noted above, Decca did not respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that Decca Furniture did not establish its eligibility for separate rate status. In addition, three other companies for which a review was requested failed to provide separate rate applications or certifications.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party or parties that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, the petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review with respect to Fortune Glory within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation. No other parties requested an administrative review of the order with respect to Fortune Glory. Therefore, in accordance
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments, filed electronically using ACCESS, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days after the due date for case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the argument not to exceed five pages, and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Unless extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this AR, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs received, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
The Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For Fortune Glory, for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions with respect to Fortune Glory to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
Upon issuing the final results of this review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of 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 previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the PRC-wide entity, which is 216.01 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, 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 duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Joint Scallop Plan Development Team and Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn Logan Airport, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; phone: (617) 567-6789.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Scallop Plan Development Team (PDT) and Advisory Panel (AP) will review Framework (FW) 29 alternatives and analyses. The primary focus of this meeting will be to provide input on the range of specification alternatives. FW 29 will set specifications including ABC/ACLs, days at sea, access area allocations, total allowable catch for the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) management area, targets for General Category incidental catch and set-asides for the observer and research programs for fishing year 2018 and default specifications for fishing year 2019. Management measures in FW 29 include: (1) Flatfish accountability measures; (2) NGOM Management measures; (3) Measures to access area boundaries consistent with potential changes to habitat and groundfish mortality closed areas. They will also make recommendations on 2018 scallop work priorities. The PDT and AP will discuss scallop related issues under consideration in groundfish FW 57. Other business may be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at 978-465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 51 assessment webinar IV for Gulf of Mexico gray snapper.
The SEDAR 51 assessment process of Gulf of Mexico gray snapper will consist of a Data Workshop, a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop.
The SEDAR 51 assessment webinar IV will be held October 30, 2017 from 1 p.m.-3 p.m. Eastern Time.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion during the assessment webinar IV are as follows:
1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the Data Workshop, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.
2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Ad hoc Community Advisory Board (CAB) will hold a two-day meeting in Portland, OR. The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 and Wednesday, October 25, 2017, from 8 a.m. each morning until business for each day has been completed.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Portland Airport Hotel, Garden A/B/C Room, 8235 NE Airport Way, Portland, OR 97220; telephone: (503) 281-2500.
Dr. Jim Seger, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2416.
The primary purpose of the CAB meeting is to review the public review draft of the catch share program five-year review document and continue to develop ranges of alternatives for Pacific Council consideration at the November 2017 Pacific Council meeting. The issues to be covered were identified by the Pacific Council at its June 2017 meeting, and include: Meeting the at-sea whiting fishery bycatch needs; trawl sablefish area management (including limits on gear switching); shoreside individual fishing quota (IFQ) accumulation limit; shoreside IFQ choke species management; and catcher-processor sector accumulation limits on permit ownership and harvesting/processing. Ranges of alternatives are to be developed and finalized for analysis over the course of the November 2017 and March/April 2018 Pacific Council meetings. Due to workload limitations, it is unlikely that all of these issues will move forward in 2018.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2411 at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Seattle Department of Transportation (Seattle DOT) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during pile driving and removal activities associated with the restoration of Pier 62 project in Seattle Waterfront, Elliot Bay in Seattle, Washington.
This Authorization is applicable from October 4, 2017 through February 28, 2018.
Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
In compliance with NOAA policy, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
On January 27, 2017, NMFS received a request from the Seattle DOT for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving activities for the restoration of Pier 62, Seattle Waterfront, Elliot Bay in Seattle, Washington. Seattle DOT's request is for take of 11 species of marine mammals, by Level A and Level B harassment. Neither Seattle DOT nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
This IHA would cover one season of a larger project for which Seattle DOT intends to request take authorization for subsequent facets of the project. The second season of the project is expected to involve pile driving the remainder of piles for Pier 62 and Pier 63.
The planned project will replace Pier 62 and make limited modifications to Pier 63 on the Seattle waterfront of Elliot Bay, Seattle, Washington. The existing piers are constructed of creosote-treated timber piles and treated timber decking, which are failing. The planned project would demolish and remove the existing timber piles and decking of Pier 62, and replace them with concrete deck planks, concrete pile caps, and steel piling.
The footprint of Pier 62 will remain as it currently is, with a small amount of additional over-water coverage (approximately 3,200 square feet) created by a new float system added to the south side of Pier 62. This float system is intended for moorage of transient, small-boat traffic, and will not be designed to accommodate mooring or berthing for larger vessels. This includes removing 815 timber piles, and will require installation of 180 steel piles for Pier 62. To offset the additional over-water coverage associated with the new float system, approximately 3,700 square feet of Pier 63 will be removed. This includes removing 65 timber piles, and will require installation of nine steel piles to provide structural support for the remaining portion of Pier 63. Seattle DOT estimates 49 days will be needed to remove the old timber piles and 64 days for installation of steel piles for a total of 113 in-water construction days for both Pier 62 and Pier 63. Pile driving (removal and installation activities) will occur approximately eight hours a day during daylight hours only.
The 14-inch (in) timber piles will be removed with a vibratory hammer or pulled with a clamshell bucket. The 30-in steel piles will be installed with a vibratory hammer to the extent possible. An impact hammer will be used for proofing steel piles or when encountering obstructions or difficult ground conditions. The contractor may elect to operate multiple pile crews for the Pier 62 Project. As a result, more than one vibratory or impact hammer may be active at the same time. The Seattle DOT will not operate more than two vibratory hammers concurrently. The Seattle DOT will proof 10 piles, spread over the different geological zones and construction zones of the pier foundation. For this proofing effort, one impact crane would be mobilized. In addition to proofing, if a pile reaches refusal (
In-water noise from pile driving activities will result in the take, by Level A and Level B harassment only, of 11 species of marine mammals. It is assumed that a second season of in-water pile driving will be required to finish the pile installation. The specific scope of the second season of work will depend on work accomplished during the first season. A separate IHA application will be prepared for the second season of work. In-water work will occur within a modified or shortened work window (October through February) to reduce or minimize effects on juvenile salmonids.
A detailed description of the planned Pier 62 project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to the Seattle DOT for the Pier 62 project was published in the
1. If aquarium animals are determined by the Aquarium veterinarian to be distressed, Seattle DOT will coordinate with Aquarium staff to determine appropriate next steps, which may include suspending pile driving work
2. Seattle DOT will make reasonable efforts to take at least one regularly scheduled 20-minute break in pile driving each day.
3. Seattle DOT will regularly communicate with the Aquarium staff when pile driving is occurring.
4. Seattle DOT will further coordinate with the Aquarium to determine appropriate methods to avoid and minimize impacts to water quality.
5. Seattle DOT does not anticipate the project resulting in impacts associated with airborne dust. If, during construction, odors associated with the project are an issue, Seattle DOT will coordinate with its contractor to determine appropriate mitigation measures.
The marine mammal species under NMFS's jurisdiction that have the potential to occur in the construction area include Pacific harbor seal (
A detailed description of the of the species likely to be affected by the Pier 62 project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
The effects of underwater noise from the planned activities for the Pier 62 project have the potential to result in Level B behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for high frequency species, due to larger predicted auditory injury zones. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency species and most pinnipeds. The mitigation and monitoring measures (
The project would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, such as haulout sites, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources such as marine invertebrates and fish species. Construction will also have temporary effects on salmonids and other fish species in the project area due to disturbance, turbidity, noise, and the potential resuspension of contaminants during the Pier 62 project. The
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes to be authorized through this IHA, which informed both NMFS's consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as exposure to pile driving activities has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for high frequency species due to larger predicted auditory injury zones. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency species and most pinnipeds. The mitigation and monitoring measures (
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the authorized take estimates.
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS's Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2016a) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). Seattle DOT's planned activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving and removal) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources.
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are provided in Table 2 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that fed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.
Background noise is the sound level that would exist without the planned activity (pile driving and removal, in this case), while ambient sound levels are those without human activity (NOAA 2009). The marine waterway of Elliott Bay is very active, and human factors that may contribute to background noise levels include ship traffic and fishing-boat depth sounders. Natural actions that contribute to ambient noise include waves, wind, rainfall, current fluctuations, chemical composition, and biological sound sources (
The sound source levels for installation of the 30-in steel piles are based on surrogate data compiled by WSDOT. The source level of vibratory removal of 14-in timber piles were based on measurements conducted at the Port Townsend Ferry Terminal during vibratory removal of 12-in timber piles by WSDOT (Laughlin 2011). The recorded source level is 152 decibels (dB) re 1 micropascal (μPa) at 16 meters (m) from the pile. This value was also used for other pile driving projects (
The method of incidental take requested is Level B acoustical harassment of any marine mammal occurring within the 160 dB rms disturbance threshold during impact pile driving of 30-in pipe piles; the 120 dB rms disturbance threshold for vibratory pile driving of 30-in pipe piles; and the 120 dB rms disturbance threshold for vibratory removal of 14-in timber piles have been established as the three different Level B ZOIs that will be in place during active pile removal or installation of the different types of piles (Table 3). However, measured ambient noise levels in the area are 124 dB; therefore, NMFS only considers take likely to occur in the area ensonified above 124 dB, as pile driving noise below 124 dB would likely be masked or their impacts diminished such that any reactions would not be considered take as a result of the high ambient noise levels.
For the Level B ZOI's, sound waves propagate in all directions when they travel through water until they dissipate to background levels or encounter barriers that absorb or reflect their energy, such as a landmass. Therefore, the area of the Level B ZOIs was determined using land as the boundary on the north, east and south sides of the project. On the west, land was also used to establish the zone for vibratory driving. From Alki on the south and Magnolia on the north, a straight line of transmission was established out to Bainbridge Island. For impact driving (and vibratory removal), sound dissipates much quicker and the impact zone stays within Elliott Bay. Pile-related construction noise would extend throughout the nearshore and open water environments to just west of Alki Point and a limited distance into the East Waterway of the Lower Duwamish River, a highly industrialized waterway. Because landmasses block in-water construction noise, a “noise shadow”
When NMFS Technical Guidance (NMFS 2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as vibratory and impact pile driving, NMFS's User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths are reported below.
The PTS isopleths were identified for each hearing group for impact and vibratory installation and removal methods that will be used in the Pier 62 Project. The PTS isopleth distances were calculated using the NMFS acoustic threshold calculator (NMFS 2016), with inputs based on measured and surrogate noise measurements taken during the EBSP and from WSDOT, and estimating conservative working durations (Table 4 and Table 5).
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that informed the take calculation and we describe how the marine mammal occurrence information is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate. In all cases we demonstrated take estimates using the species density data from the 2015 Pacific Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2015), to estimate take for marine mammals.
Take estimates are based on average marine mammal density in the project area multiplied by the area size of ensonified zones within which received noise levels exceed certain thresholds (
Unless otherwise described, incidental take is estimated by the following equation:
However, adjustments were made for nearly every marine mammal species, whenever their local abundance was known through other monitoring efforts. In those cases, the local abundance data was used for take calculations for the authorized take instead of general animal density (see below).
Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015) for the inland waters of Puget Sound, potential take of harbor seal is shown in Table 6. Based on these calculations, Level A take is estimated at 10 harbor seals from vibratory pile driving and Level B take is estimated at 6,193 harbor seals from all sound sources. However, observational data from previous projects on the Seattle waterfront have documented only a fraction of what is calculated using the Navy density estimates for Puget Sound. For example, between zero and seven seals were observed daily for the EBSP and 56 harbor seals were observed over 10 days in the area with the maximum number of 13 harbor seals sighted during the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project (WSF 2016).
Therefore, the harbor seal take estimate is based on local seal abundance information using the maximum number of seals (13) sighted in one day during the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project multiplied by a total of 113 pile driving days for the Seattle DOT Pier 62 Project. As a result, NMFS will authorize Level B harassment of 1,469 harbor seals that could be exposed to noise levels associated with “take.” Fifty-three of the 113 days of activity would involve installation by vibratory pile driving, which has a much larger Level A zone (306.8 m) than the Level A zones for vibratory removal (10.6 m) and impact pile driving (47.4 m). Harbor seals may be difficult to observe at greater distances, therefore, during vibratory pile driving, it may not be known how long a seal is present in the Level A zone. We estimate that four harbor seals may experience Level A harassment during these 53 days. Four seals were considered to have the potential to be taken by Level A harassment based the local observational data for harbor seals, the larger ensonified area during vibratory pile driving for installation, and our best professional judgment that an animal would remain within the injury zone for prolonged exposure of intense noise. The number of Level B takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes, so the authorized Level B take is 1,465 harbor seals.
Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential take of northern elephant seal is expected to be zero. However, The Whale Museum (as cited in WSDOT 2016a) reported one sighting in the relevant area between 2008 and 2014. Therefore, the Seattle DOT requested and NMFS will authorize Level B harassment of one northern elephant seal.
Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015) for the inland waters of Washington, including Eastern Bays and Puget Sound, potential take of California sea lion is shown in Table 7. Since the calculated Level A
Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential take of Steller sea lion is shown in Table 8. Since the calculated Level A zones of otariids are all very small (Table 5), we do not consider it likely that any Steller sea lions would be taken by Level A harassment. The Seattle DOT requested and NMFS will authorize Level B harassment of 188 Steller sea lions.
Based on the U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015) the density for the SRKW is variable across seasons and across the range. The inland water density estimates vary from 0.001461 to 0.004760/km
With the variable winter density, the Level B take estimate can range from 24 to 104 SRKW, with the upper take estimate greater than the estimated population size and the lower estimated take still greater than 20 percent of the population. NMFS will authorize Level B harassment of 24 SRKW based on a single occurrence of one pod (
Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential take of transient killer whale is shown in Table 10. As with the SRKW, the density estimate of transient killer whales is variable between seasons and regions. In fall, density estimates range from 0.001583 to 0.002373/km
Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential take of long-beaked common dolphin is expected to be zero. However, in 2016, the Orca Network (2016c) reported a pod of up to 20 long-beaked common dolphins. Therefore, the Seattle DOT requested and NMFS authorized Level B harassment of 20 long-beaked common dolphins. Since the Level A zones of mid-frequency cetaceans are all very small (Table 5), we do not consider it likely that the long-beaked common dolphin would be taken by Level A harassment.
Based on species density estimates from Jefferson
Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential take of Dall's porpoise is shown in Table 12. Based on these calculations, the Seattle DOT requested and NMFS will authorize take by Level A harassment of two Dall's porpoise and take by Level B harassment of 199 Dall's porpoise.
Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential take of humpback whale is shown in Table 13. Although the standard take calculations would result in an estimated take of less than one humpback whale, to be conservative, the Seattle DOT requested and NMFS will authorize Level B harassment of five humpback whales based on take during previous work in Elliott Bay where two humpback whales were observed, including one take, during the 175 days of work during the previous four years (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017). Since the Level A zones of low-frequency cetaceans are
Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential take of gray whale is shown in Table 14. The Seattle DOT requested and NMFS will authorize Level B harassment of three gray whales. Since the Level A zones of low-frequency cetaceans are smaller during vibratory removal (17.4 m) or impact installation (88.6 m) compared to the Level A zone for vibratory installation (504.8 m) (Table 5), we do not consider it likely that any gray whales would be taken by Level A harassment during removal or impact installation. We also do not believe any gray whales would be taken during vibratory installation due to the ability to see gray whales easily during monitoring and additional coordination with the Orca Network and the CWR, which would enable the work to be shut down before a gray whale would be taken by Level A harassment.
Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential take of minke whales is expected to be zero (Table 15). However, between 2008 and 2014, the Whale Museum (as cited in WSDOT 2016a) reported one sighting in the relevant area. Although the take calculations would result in an estimated take of less than one minke whale, the Seattle DOT is requesting authorization for Level B harassment of two minke whales, based on previous sightings in the construction area by the Whale Museum. Based on the low probability that a minke whale would be observed during the project and then also enter into a Level A zone, we do not consider it likely that any minke whales would be taken by Level A harassment.
The summary of the authorized take by Level A and Level B Harassment is described below in Table 16.
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Several measures for mitigating effects on marine mammals from the pile installation and removal activities at Pier 62 and are described below.
All work will be conducted during daylight hours.
A bubble curtain will be used during pile driving activities with an impact hammer to reduce sound levels.
Exclusion Zones will be implemented to protect marine mammals from Level A harassment (Table 17 below). The PTS isopleths described in Table 5 were used as a starting point for calculating the exclusion zones; however, Seattle DOT will implement a minimum shutdown zone of a 10 m radius around each pile for all construction methods for all marine mammals. Therefore, in some cases the exclusion zone will be slightly larger than was calculated for the PTS isopleths as described in Table 5 (
Seattle DOT will implement shutdown measures if the cumulative total number of individuals observed within the Level B harassment zone for any particular species reaches the number authorized under the IHA and if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during in-water construction activities.
Seattle DOT will monitoring the Level B harassment zones as described in Table 18.
Each day at the beginning of impact pile driving or any time there has been cessation or downtime of 30 minutes or more without pile driving, Seattle DOT will use the soft-start technique by providing an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a one-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets.
The project team will monitor and coordinate with local marine mammal networks on a daily basis (
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's mitigation measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Marine mammal monitoring will be conducted at all times during in-water pile driving and pile removal activities in strategic locations around the area of potential effects as described below:
During pile removal or installation with a vibratory hammer, three to four monitors would be used, positioned such that each monitor has a distinct view-shed and the monitors collectively have overlapping view-sheds.
During pile driving activities with an impact hammer, one monitor, based
In the case(s) where visibility becomes limited, additional land-based monitors and/or boat-based monitors may be deployed.
Monitors will record take when marine mammals enter the relevant Level B Harassment Zones based on type of construction activity.
If a marine mammal approaches an Exclusion Zone, the observation will be reported to the Construction Manager and the individual will be watched closely. If the marine mammal crosses into an Exclusion Zone, a stop-work order will be issued. In the event that a stop-work order is triggered, the observed marine mammal(s) will be closely monitored while it remains in or near the Exclusion Zone, and only when it moves well outside of the Exclusion Zone or has not been observed for at least 15 minutes for pinnipeds and small cetaceans and 30 minutes for large whales will the lead monitor allow work to recommence.
Seattle DOT shall employ NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs) to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its Pier 62 Project. The PSOs will observe and collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30 minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal and pile installation work. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the following requirements:
1. Independent observers (
2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience.
4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
6. PSOs will monitor marine mammals around the construction site using high-quality binoculars (
7. If marine mammals are observed, the following information will be documented:
(A) Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
(B) Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
(C) Weather parameters (
(D) Water conditions (
(E) Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
(F) Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity;
(G) Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
(H) Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
(I) Other human activity in the area.
In addition, acoustic monitoring will occur on up to six days per in-water work season to evaluate, in real time, sound production from construction activities and will capture all hammering scenarios that may occur under the planned project. Background noise recordings (in the absence of pile-related work) will also be made during the study to provide a baseline background noise profile. Acoustic monitoring will follow NMFS's 2012 Guidance Documents: Sound Propagation Modeling to Characterize Pile Driving Sounds Relevant to Marine Mammals and Data Collection Methods to Characterize Underwater Background Sound Relevant to Marine Mammals in Coastal Nearshore Waters and Rivers of Washington and Oregon.
The results and conclusions of the acoustic monitoring will be summarized and presented to NOAA/NMFS with recommendations on any modifications to this plan or Exclusion Zones.
Seattle DOT will submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the in-water construction work or the expiration of the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. The report would include data from marine mammal sightings as described: Date, time, location, species, group size, and behavior, any observed reactions to construction, distance to operating pile hammer, and construction activities occurring at time of sighting and environmental data for the period (
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, Seattle DOT would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and the NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Seattle DOT to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Seattle DOT may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that Seattle DOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that Seattle DOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
Seattle DOT will submit an Acoustic Monitoring Report within 90 days after completion of the in-water construction work or the expiration of the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. The report will provide details on the monitored piles, method of installation, monitoring equipment, and sound levels documented during both the sound source measurements and the background monitoring. NMFS will have an opportunity to provide comments on the report or changes in monitoring for the second season, and if NMFS has comments, Seattle DOT will address the comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft report will be considered final. Any comments received during that time will be addressed in full prior to finalization of the report.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized for the Pier 62 Project. Takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level A and Level B harassment (behavioral). Marine mammals present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level A and Level B harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise levels during pile driving and pile removal and the implosion noise. However, many marine mammals showed no observable changes during similar project activities for the EBSP.
There are two endangered species that may occur in the project area, humpback whales and SRKW. However, few humpbacks are expected to occur in the project area and few have been observed during previous projects in Elliot Bay. SRKW have occurred in small numbers in the project area. Seattle DOT will shut down in the Level B ZOI should they meet or exceed the take of one occurrence of one pod (J-pod, 24 whales).
There is ESA-designated critical habitat in the vicinity of Seattle DOT's Pier 62 Project for SRKW. However, this IHA is authorizing the harassment of marine mammals, not the production of sound, which is what would result in adverse effects to critical habitat for SRKW. There is one documented harbor seal haulout area near Bainbridge Island, approximately 6 miles (9.66 km) from Pier 62. The haulout, which is estimated at less than 100 animals, consists of intertidal rocks and reef areas around Blakely Rocks and is at the outer edge of potential effects at the outer extent near Bainbridge Island (Jefferies
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammal habitat, as analyzed in the “Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat” section. Project activities would not permanently modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may kill some fish and cause other fish to leave the area temporarily, thus impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences. Therefore, given the consideration of potential impacts to marine mammal prey species and their physical environment, Seattle DOT's Pier 62 Project would not adversely affect marine mammal habitat.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized.
• Takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral) and a small number of takes of Level A harassment (behavioral) for three species.
• The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat.
• There are no known important feeding or pupping areas. There are two haulouts (harbor seals and Steller sea lions). However, they are at the most outer edge of the potential effects and approximately 6.6 miles from Pier 62. There are no other known important areas for marine mammals.
• For eight of the eleven species, take is less than one percent of the stock abundance. Instances of take for the
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
Take of eight of the eleven species is less than one percent of the stock abundance. Instances of take for the SRKW and transient killer whales, harbor seals, and harbor porpoise ranges from about 13-31 percent of the stock abundance. However, when the fact that a fair number of these instances are expected to be repeat takes of the same animals is considered, the number of individual marine mammals taken is significantly lower. Specifically, for example, Jefferson
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Permit and Conservation Division consulted under of section 7 of the ESA with the WCRO for the issuance of this IHA. The WCRO concluded that the actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of SRKW and humpback whales will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. NMFS will authorize take of SRKW and humpback whales, which are listed under the ESA.
NMFS has issued an IHA to the Seattle DOT for the harassment of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal activities for the Pier 62 Project within Elliot Bay, Seattle, Washington from October 2017 to February 2018, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Caribbean Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) meeting change of dates due to the passing of hurricanes Irma and Maria through Puerto Rico.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's SSC will hold a 5-day meeting, from October 30, 2017, to November 3, 2017, to discuss the items contained in the agenda below.
The meetings will be held from October 30 through November 3, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meetings will be held at the Council Office, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903, telephone: (787) 766-5926.
Tiered ABC Control Rule:
Stocks/stock complexes to which the Tiered ABC CR cannot be applied:
The order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the completion of agenda items. The meeting will begin on October 30, 2017 at 9 a.m. Other than the start time, interested parties should be aware that discussions may start earlier or later than indicated. In addition, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DoD.
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 11, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Finance and Accounting Services—Indianapolis, DFAS-ZPR. ATTN: La Zaleus D. Leach, 8899 E. 56th St., Indianapolis, IN 46249,
DFAS maintains updated debt accounts and initiates debt collection action for separated military members, out-of-service civilian employees, and other individuals not on an active federal government payroll system. When notice is received that an individual debtor is deceased, an effort is made to ascertain whether the decedent left an estate by contacting clerks of probate courts. If it is determined that an estate was established, attempts are made to collect the debt from the estate. If no estate appears to have been established, the debt is written off as uncollectible.
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of renewal.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2., and in accordance with Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee has been renewed for a two-year period.
The Committee will provide advice to the Office of Science (DOE), on long-range plans, priorities, and strategies for advancing plasma science, fusion science and fusion technology—the knowledge base needed for an economically and environmentally attractive fusion energy source. The Secretary of Energy has determined that the renewal of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee is essential to the conduct of the Department's business and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), the General Services Administration Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, and other directives and instruction issued in the implementation of those Acts.
Edmund J. Synakowski at (301) 903-4941.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This collection was developed as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery. This notice announces DOE's intent to submit this collection to OMB for approval and solicits comments on specific aspects for the proposed information collection.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before December 11, 2017. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, please contact the PRA Officer listed below as soon as possible.
Written comments may be sent to Christina Rouleau, PRA Officer, Enterprise Policy Development and Implementation Office (IM-22), Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection supporting statement should be directed to the person listed in
This information collection request contains (1) OMB No. 1910-5160; (2) Information Collection Request Title; “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery”; (3) Type of Review: Extension; (4) Purpose: The proposed information collection activity provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving 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 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; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,000; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 10,000; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 200,000; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: There are no costs for Reporting and Recordkeeping.
Executive Order (EO) 13571, Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service.
Take notice that on October 2, 2017, pursuant to section 292.205(c) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practices and Procedures implementing the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, as amended, 18 CFR 292.205(c)(2017), Applied Energy LLC (Applied Energy) requested a limited waiver of the operating standard set forth in section 292.205(a)(1) of the Commission's regulations and the efficiency standard set forth in section 292.205(a)(2) for the topping-cycle cogeneration facility owned and operated by Applied Energy located at the United States Naval Station in San Diego, California. Specifically, Applied Energy request waiver of the operating and efficiency standards for calendar years 2017 and 2018, as more fully explained in its waiver request.
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
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 on October 2, 2017, pursuant to section 292.205(c) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practices and Procedures implementing the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, as amended, 18 CFR 292.205(c) (2017), Applied Energy LLC (Applied Energy) requested a limited waiver of the operating standard set forth in section 292.205(a)(1) of the Commission's regulations and the efficiency standard set forth in section 292.205(a)(2) for the topping-cycle cogeneration facility owned and operated by Applied Energy located at the United States Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego, California. Specifically, Applied Energy request waiver of the operating and efficiency standards for calendar years 2017 and 2018, as more fully explained in its waiver request.
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 Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Take notice that on September 28, 2017, pursuant to sections 206, 306
NYPA certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners in their Collective Capacity.
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. 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 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 corporate filings:
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 exempt wholesale generator filings:
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 qualifying facility 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. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
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.
On October 4, 2017, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL17-91-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the proposed reactive power rates of Dynegy Lee II, LLC may be unjust and unreasonable.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL17-91-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL17-91-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2017), within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
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.
On September 29, 2017, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL17-93-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the proposed rate decreases of System Energy Resources, Inc. may be unjust and unreasonable.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL17-93-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL17-93-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2017), within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
On September 6, 2017, Dominion Energy Services, Inc., filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Tazewell Hybrid
The proposed project would consist of one of the following two alternatives:
Under both alternatives, mine water would serve as the water source for the initial fill and makeup water.
The proposed project would have an annual generation of 1,302 gigawatt-hours (GWh) and 2,540 GWh for alternatives 1 and 2, respectively.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
The Commission's September 7, 2017 order in the above-captioned proceeding
Take notice that a technical conference will be held on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
All interested persons and staff are permitted to attend. For further information please contact David Faerberg at (202) 502-8275 or email David Faerberg at
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:
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of Final 2018 Olmsted Power Marketing Plan and Call for Applications.
Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), a Federal power marketing agency of the Department of Energy, announces its Final 2018 Olmsted Power Marketing Plan and Call for Applications for an allocation of energy from the Olmsted Powerplant Replacement Project.
Applications and Applicant Profile Data are due December 11, 2017 to be assured of consideration by WAPA.
Send applications to: Ms. Lynn Jeka, CRSP Manager, CRSP Management Center, Western Area Power Administration, 150 East Social Hall Avenue, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1580. Applications may also be faxed to (801) 524-5017 or emailed to
Mr. Brent Osiek, Power Marketing Manager, (801) 524-5495; or Mr. Lyle Johnson, Public Utilities Specialist, (801) 524-5585. Written requests for information should be sent to CRSP Management Center, Western Area Power Administration, 150 East Social Hall Avenue, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1580; faxed to (801) 524-5017; or emailed to
The United States acquired the Olmsted Powerplant in 1990 through condemnation proceedings in order to secure the water rights associated with the Olmsted Powerplant deemed essential to the Central Utah Project (CUP). The CUP is a participating project of the Colorado River Storage Project. As part of the condemnation proceedings, PacifiCorp continued Olmsted operations until 2015; after which time, the operation of the facility became the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation.
The existing Olmsted Powerplant greatly exceeded its operational life, and a replacement facility was needed for the generation of power and preservation of associated non-consumptive water rights. On February 4, 2015, an Implementation Agreement (Agreement) for the Olmsted Powerplant Replacement Project (Project) was signed by Central Utah Water Conservancy District (District), the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and WAPA (Participants). The Agreement sets forth the responsibilities of the Participants and identifies funding of the Project. The District will construct, operate, maintain, and replace the Olmsted Powerplant and incidental facilities in connection with its CUP operations, including power generation.
WAPA is responsible for marketing the Olmsted energy, which is anticipated to be first available in the summer of 2018. Power production will be incidental to the delivery of water and will only be available when water is present. Therefore, only energy, without capacity, will be available for marketing. It is expected that the annual energy production from the replacement Olmsted Powerplant will average around 27,000,000 kWh per year.
WAPA received numerous comments on its Proposed 2018 Olmsted Power Marketing Plan during the comment period. WAPA reviewed and considered all comments received, and this section summarizes and responds to the comments received. For brevity, when it was possible to do so without affecting the meaning of the statements, the public comments below were paraphrased.
WAPA will apply the following criteria to applicants seeking an allocation of energy under the Final 2018 Olmsted Power Marketing Plan:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
This Notice formally requests applications from eligible entities seeking to purchase Federal power from Olmsted. WAPA is requesting that its Applicant Profile Data (APD) form be used to provide a uniform basis for evaluating applications. APD forms are available upon request or may be accessed online at
The content and format of the APD form are outlined below. Applicants must provide all requested information, or the most reasonable available estimate, or should indicate “not applicable” if they have no information to be considered for a requested item. WAPA is not responsible for errors in data or missing pages. All items of information in the APD form should be answered as if prepared by the entity seeking the allocation. The APD form includes the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Upon receiving the APD, WAPA will verify that the applicant meets the eligibility criteria and that the application contains all information requested in the APD form. WAPA may request, in writing, additional information from any applicant whose APD is determined to be deficient. The applicant will have 15 calendar days from the date on WAPA's letter of request to provide the information. If WAPA determines the applicant does not meet the eligibility criteria, WAPA will send a letter explaining why the applicant did not qualify. If the applicant has met the eligibility criteria, WAPA will determine the amount of
The APD form and documents developed or retained by WAPA during this public process will be available, by appointment, for inspection and copying at the CRSP Management Center, located at 150 East Social Hall Avenue, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, Utah.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR 1021), WAPA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on January 13, 2017. The FONSI and other NEPA compliance documentation may be found at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601,
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 2812, WAPA received approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under control number 1910-5136, to collect customer information through WAPA's Applicant Profile Data in order to allocate Federal hydropower.
WAPA has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Teleconference.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, EPA gives notice of a public meeting of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). NACEPT provides advice to the EPA Administrator on a broad range of environmental policy, technology, and management issues. NACEPT members represent academia, business/industry, non-governmental organizations, and state, local and tribal governments. The purpose of this meeting is for NACEPT to review and discuss draft recommendations addressing how to best integrate citizen science work at EPA through effective collaboration and partnerships. In addition, NACEPT will review and provide comments on a draft citizen science question and answer handbook. A copy of the meeting agenda will be posted at
NACEPT will hold a public teleconference on November 28, 2017, from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. (EST).
The meeting will be held at the EPA Headquarters, William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building East, Room 1132, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Eugene Green, Designated Federal Officer,
Requests to make oral comments or to provide written comments to NACEPT should be sent to Eugene Green at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of the Science Advisor announces two separate public meetings of the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) to advise the Agency on the ethical and scientific review of research involving human subjects. Due to unforeseen administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this meeting with less than fifteen calendar days' notice.
A virtual public meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 and Thursday, October 26, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on both dates. A separate, subsequent teleconference meeting is planned for Tuesday, December 12, 2017, from 2:00 p.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for the HSRB to finalize its Final Report of the October 25 and 26, 2017 meeting and review other possible topics.
Both of these meetings will be conducted entirely by telephone and on the Internet using Adobe Connect. For detailed access information visit the HSRB Web site:
Any member of the public who wishes to receive further information should contact the HSRB Designated Federal Official (DFO), Thomas O'Farrell on telephone number (202) 564-8451; fax number: (202) 564-2070; email address:
The HSRB encourages the public's input. You may participate in these meetings by following the instructions in this section.
1. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments during either meeting will be accepted up to Noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 18, 2017, for the October 25 and 26, 2017 meeting and up to Noon Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 5, 2017 for the December 12, 2017 meeting. To the extent that time permits, interested persons who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the HSRB Chair to present oral comments during either meeting at the designated time on the agenda. Oral comments before the HSRB are generally limited to five minutes per individual or organization. If additional time is available, further public comments may be possible.
2. Written comments. Submit your written comments prior to the meetings. For the Board to have the best opportunity to review and consider your comments as it deliberates, you should submit your comments by Noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 18, 2017, for the October 25 and 26, 2017 meeting and up to Noon Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 5, 2017 for the December 12, 2017 meeting. If you submit comments after these dates, those comments will be provided to the HSRB members, but you should recognize that the HSRB members may not have adequate time to consider your comments prior to their discussion. You should submit your comments to the DFO, Thomas O'Farrell listed under
The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 5 U.S.C. App.2 § 9. The HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations on issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of third-party human subjects research that are submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to be used for regulatory purposes.
Topic for discussion. On October 25 and 26, 2017, EPA's Human Studies Review Board will finalize the draft Final Report from the July 26, 2017 meeting and consider one topic: The Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Task Force II Airless Sprayer Study Protocol.
The Agenda and meeting materials for this topic will be available in advance of the meeting at
On December 12, 2017, the HSRB will review and finalize their draft Final Report from the October 25 and 26, 2017 meeting, in addition to other topics that may come before the Board. The HSRB may also discuss planning for future HSRB meetings. The agenda and the draft report will be available prior to the meeting at
Meeting minutes and final reports. Minutes of these meetings, summarizing the matters discussed and recommendations made by the HSRB, will be released within 90 calendar days of the meeting. These minutes will be available at
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 25, 2017.
1.
1.
1.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 6, 2017.
1.
1.
2.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).
Notice; extension of comment period.
On August 9, 2017, the Board published in the
Comments on the proposal must be received on or before November 30, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the methods identified in the proposal.
Michael Hsu, Associate Director, (202) 912-4330, Michael Solomon, Associate Director, (202) 452-3502, Richard Naylor, Associate Director, (202) 728-5854, Division of Supervision and Regulation; Ben McDonough, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 452-2036, Scott Tkacz, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-2744, Keisha Patrick, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-3559, or Chris Callanan, Senior Attorney, (202) 452-3594, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869.
On August 9, 2017, the Board published in the
In recognition of the range of issues addressed and the variety of considerations involved with implementing the proposal, the Board requested that commenters respond to a number of questions. The proposal stated that the comment period would close on October 10, 2017.
An extension of the comment period will facilitate public comment on the provisions of the proposal and the questions posed by the Board. Therefore, the Board is extending the end of the comment period for the proposal from October 10, 2017, to November 30, 2017.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 24, 2017.
1.
2.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 7, 2017.
1.
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Notice.
The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The FTC seeks public comments on its proposal to extend, for three years, the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in its Trade Regulation Rule entitled Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation (R-value Rule or Rule).
Comments must be submitted by December 11, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
Requests for additional information should be addressed to Hampton Newsome, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mail Code CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2889.
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing clearance for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's R-value Rule, 16 CFR part 460 (OMB Control Number 3084-0109).
The R-value Rule establishes uniform standards for the substantiation and disclosure of accurate, material product information about the thermal performance characteristics of home insulation products. The R-value of an insulation signifies the insulation's degree of resistance to the flow of heat. This information tells consumers how well a product is likely to perform as an insulator and allows consumers to determine whether the cost of the insulation is justified.
The Rule's requirements include product testing, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosures on labels, fact sheets, advertisements, and other promotional materials. Based on information provided by members of the insulation industry, staff estimates that the Rule affects: (1) 150 insulation manufacturers and their testing laboratories; (2) 1,615 installers who sell home insulation; (3) 125,000 new home builders/sellers of site-built homes and approximately 5,500 dealers who sell manufactured housing; and (4) 25,000 retail sellers who sell home insulation for installation by consumers.
Under the Rule's testing requirements, manufacturers must test each insulation product for its R-value. Based on past industry input, staff estimates that the test takes approximately two hours. Approximately 15 of the 150 insulation manufacturers in existence introduce one new product each year. Their total annual testing burden is therefore approximately 30 hours.
Staff further estimates that most manufacturers require an average of approximately 20 hours per year regarding third-party disclosure requirements in advertising and other promotional materials. Only the five or six largest manufacturers require additional time, approximately 80 hours each. Thus, the annual third-party disclosure burden for manufacturers is approximately 3,360 hours [(144 manufacturers × 20 hours) + (6 manufacturers × 80 hours)].
While the Rule imposes recordkeeping requirements, most manufacturers and their testing laboratories keep their testing-related records in the ordinary course of business. Staff estimates that no more than one additional hour per year per manufacturer is necessary to comply with this requirement, for an annual recordkeeping burden of approximately 150 hours (150 manufacturers × 1 hour).
Installers are required to show the manufacturers' insulation fact sheet to retail consumers before purchase. They must also disclose information in contracts or receipts concerning the R-value and the amount of insulation to install. Staff estimates that two minutes per sales transaction is sufficient to comply with these requirements. Approximately 2,000,000 retrofit insulations (an industry source's estimate) are installed by approximately 1,615 installers per year, and, thus, the related annual burden total is approximately 66,667 hours (2,000,000 sales transactions × 2 minutes). Staff anticipates that one hour per year per installer is sufficient to cover required disclosures in advertisements and other promotional materials. Thus, the burden for this requirement is approximately 1,615 hours per year. In addition, installers must keep records that indicate the substantiation relied upon for savings claims. The additional time to comply with this requirement is minimal—approximately 5 minutes per year per installer—for a total of approximately 135 hours.
New home sellers must make contract disclosures concerning the type, thickness, and R-value of the insulation they install in each part of a new home. Staff estimates that no more than 30 seconds per sales transaction is required to comply with this requirement, for a total annual burden of approximately 9,783 hours (an estimated 1,174,000 new home sales per year
The Rule requires that the approximately 25,000 retailers who sell home insulation make fact sheets available to consumers before purchase. This can be accomplished by, for example, placing copies in a display rack or keeping copies in a binder on a service desk with an appropriate notice. Replenishing or replacing fact sheets should require no more than approximately one hour per year per retailer, for a total of 25,000 annual hours, industry-wide.
The Rule also requires specific disclosures in advertisements or other
Retailers who make energy savings claims in advertisements or other promotional materials must keep records that indicate the substantiation they are relying upon. Because few retailers make these types of promotional claims and because the Rule permits retailers to rely on the insulation manufacturer's substantiation data for any claims that are made, the additional recordkeeping burden is de minimis. The time calculated for disclosures, above, would be more than adequate to cover any burden imposed by this recordkeeping requirement.
To summarize, staff estimates that the Rule imposes a total of 131,740 burden hours, as follows: 150 recordkeeping and 3,390 testing and disclosure hours for manufacturers; 135 recordkeeping and 68,282 disclosure hours for installers; 9,783 disclosure hours for new home sellers; and 50,000 disclosure hours for retailers. The estimated total burden is approximately 131,740 burden hours.
The total annual labor cost for the Rule's information collection requirements is approximately $2,616,943, derived as follows: Approximately $858 for testing, based on 30 hours for manufacturers (30 hours × $28.61 per hour for skilled technical personnel); $4,284 for manufacturers' and installers' compliance with the Rule's recordkeeping requirements, based on 285 hours (285 hours × $15.03 per hour for clerical personnel); $50,501 for manufacturers' compliance with third-party disclosure requirements, based on 3,360 hours (3,360 hours × $15.03 per hour for clerical personnel); and $2,561,300 for disclosure compliance by installers, new home sellers, and retailers (128,065 hours × $20 per hour for sales persons).
There are no significant current capital or other non-labor costs associated with this Rule. Because the Rule has been in effect since 1980, members of the industry are familiar with its requirements and already have in place the equipment for conducting tests and storing records. New products are introduced infrequently. Because the required disclosures are placed on packaging or on the product itself, the Rule's additional disclosure requirements do not cause industry members to incur any significant additional non-labor associated costs.
You can file a comment online or on paper. December 11, 2017. Write “R-value Rule: FTC File No. R811001” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
If you file your comment on paper, write “R-value Rule: FTC File No. R811001” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex C), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC Web site—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC Web site, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.
Visit the Commission Web site at
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality.
The meeting will be held on Friday, November 3, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.
The meeting will be held at AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
Jaime Zimmerman, Designated Management Official, at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 06E37A, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (301) 427-1456. For press-related information, please contact Alison Hunt at (301) 427-1244 or
If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Management on (301) 827-4840, no later than Friday, October 20, 2017. The agenda, roster, and minutes will be available from Ms. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Ms. Campbell's phone number is (301) 427-1554.
The National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is authorized by Section 941 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director of AHRQ on matters related to AHRQ's conduct of its mission including providing guidance on (A) priorities for health care research, (B) the field of health care research including training needs and information dissemination on health care quality and (C) the role of the Agency in light of private sector activity and opportunities for public private partnerships. The Council is composed of members of the public, appointed by the Secretary, and Federal ex-officio members specified in the authorizing legislation.
On Friday, November 3, 2017, there will be a subcommittee meeting for the National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m. This meeting is open to the public. The full Council meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m., with the call to order by the Council Chair and approval of previous Council summary notes. The meeting is open to the public and will be available via webcast at
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by November 13, 2017.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
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. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
1. The benefit targeting index for high burden households receiving LIHEAP fuel assistance;
2. The burden reduction targeting index for high burden households receiving LIHEAP fuel assistance;
3. The number of households where LIHEAP prevented a potential home energy crisis; and
4. The number of households where LIHEAP benefits restored home energy.
All State LIHEAP grantees and the District of Columbia are required to complete the LPDF data through the Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) web-based data collection and reporting system, the Online Data Collection (OLDC), which is available at:
The previous OMB-approved
The form is divided into the following three modules to add clarity:
Module 1 of the LPDF will continue to require the following data from each state for the federal fiscal year:
• Grantee information,
• sources and uses of LIHEAP funds,
• average LIHEAP household benefits, and
• maximum income cutoffs for 4-person households for each type of LIHEAP assistance provided by each grantee for the fiscal year.
Module 2 of the
• Grantee information,
• energy burden targeting,
• restoration of home energy service, and
• prevention of loss of home energy.
Module 3 of the LIHEAP
• Average annual energy usage,
• Unduplicated number of households using supplemental heating fuel and air conditioning,
• Unduplicated number of households that had restoration of home energy service, and
• Unduplicated number of households that had prevention of loss of home energy.
Based on the data collected in the
• ACF will provide reliable and complete LIHEAP fiscal and household data to Congress in the Department's annual
• ACF will calculate LHEAP performance measures and report the results through the annual budget development process and in LIHEAP's annual Congressional Justification (CJ) under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
• ACF and grantees will be informed about the impact LIHEAP has with respect to LIHEAP households' home energy burden (the proportion of their income spent towards their home heating and cooling bills), including information on the difference between the average recipient and high burden recipients, restoring home energy service, and preventing loss of home energy service.
• ACF will be able to respond to questions on sources and uses of LIHEAP funds from the Congress, Department, OMB, White House, and other interested parties in a timely manner.
• LIHEAP grantees will be able to compare their own results to the results for other states, as well as to regional and national results, through the Data Warehouse of the LIHEAP Performance Management Web site as they manage their programs.
The table below shows the estimated data collection and reporting burden for the LPDF as reported in 2014. These estimates are based on a small number of interviews conducted in 2014 with grantees, sub-grantees, and energy vendors. In support of this submission requesting comments, ACF is currently re-assessing the level of effort to collect and report the required data in order to develop updated burden estimates. The original 2014 estimates were based on grantee reporting capabilities at that time and included time and costs for initial system development. However, since most grantees have improved their reporting capabilities, many grantees have completed their system development, and ACF has furnished reporting resources and technical assistance to assist grantees, it is expected that the time and costs associated with reporting are lower than the original 2014 estimates show below.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35), the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
ACF programs promote the economic and social well-being of families, children, individuals and communities. OPRE studies ACF programs, and the populations they serve, through rigorous research and evaluation projects. These include evaluations of existing programs, evaluations of innovative approaches to helping low income children and families, research syntheses and descriptive and exploratory studies. OPRE's research serves to provide further understanding of current programs and service populations, explore options for program improvement, and assess alternative policy and program designs. OPRE anticipates undertaking a variety of new research projects related to welfare, employment and self-sufficiency, Head Start, child care, healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood, family and youth services, home visiting, and child welfare. Many ACF program offices find a need to learn more about funded program services to inform internal decision making and to provide adequate support. Some program offices conduct their own research and evaluation projects.
Under this generic clearance, ACF would engage in a variety of formative data collections with researchers, practitioners, TA providers, service providers and program participants throughout the field to fulfill the following goals: (1) Inform the development of ACF research, (2) maintain a research agenda that is rigorous and relevant, (3) ensure that research products are as current and responsive to audience needs as possible and (4) inform the provision of technical assistance. ACF envisions using a variety of techniques including semi-structured discussions, focus groups, and telephone or in-person interviews, in order to reach these goals.
Following standard OMB requirements, OPRE will submit a change request for each individual data collection activity under this generic clearance. Each request will include the individual instrument(s), a justification specific to the individual information collection, and any supplementary documents. OMB should review requests within 10 days of submission.
Under this generic IC information will not be collected with the primary purpose of publication, but findings are meant to inform ACF activities and may be incorporated into documents or presentations that are made public. The following are some examples of ways in which we may disseminate information resulting from these data collections: Research design documents or reports; research or technical assistance plans; background materials for technical workgroups; concept maps, process maps, or conceptual frameworks; contextualization of research findings from a follow-up data collection that has full PRA approval; informational reports to stakeholders such as funders, grantees, local implementing agencies, and/or TA providers. In presenting findings, we will describe the study methods and limitations with regard to generalizability and as a basis for policy recommendations.
Total Estimated Burden Hours: 4,500.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than November 13, 2017.
Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Lisa Wright-Solomon, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
HRSA received public comment to the
The UDS data collection will be revised in six ways.
• To support continued efforts to standardize data collection and reduce the burden per respondent of reporting for health centers, HRSA is updating the clinical quality measures in table 6B and 7 to align with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) electronic clinical quality measures (e-CQMs) designated for the 2018 reporting period.
• Poor glycemic control is defined as HbA1c >9% per the CMS quality programs and e-specifications. Although clinical recommendations (
• Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) recognition assesses a health center's approach to patient-centered care. HRSA routinely receives PCMH recognition data from national quality recognition bodies. Therefore, HRSA is removing this question to reduce reporting burden.
• Telehealth is increasingly used as a method of health care delivery for the health center patient population, especially hard-to-reach patients living in geographically isolated communities. Collecting information on telehealth capacity and use of telehealth is essential for delivering technical assistance to health centers and assuring access to comprehensive, culturally competent, quality primary health care services. Based on the uniqueness of telehealth data and its introduction into the UDS system, HRSA is proposing questions that more precisely describe health center efforts in this area.
• Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) has been proven to be an effective treatment option for substance abuse disorder. With the enactment of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016, Public Law 114-198, opioid treatment prescribing privileges have been extended beyond physicians to include certain qualifying nurse practitioners (NPs) and physicians' assistants (PAs). As a result, HRSA is updating the MAT for Opioid Use Disorder question in Appendix E of the UDS to include NPs and PAs who have received an appropriate waiver to dispense narcotic drugs.
• In 2016, 98.7% of HRSA supported grantees reported adoption and use of Electronic Health Records (EHRs). The question in Appendix D regarding Meaningful Use attestation stages captures precise data regarding health center participation in the program. HRSA is updating this question to align with the CMS EHR Incentive Program Updates pertaining to attestation titles.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice and request for comments. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology is requesting OMB approval for an extension on the Generic Clearance for the Collection of Routine Customer Feedback by OMB.
Department of Health and Human Services, The Office of the Secretary (OS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This collection was developed as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery. This notice announces our intent to submit this collection to OMB for approval and solicits comments on specific aspects for the proposed information collection.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 11, 2017.
Submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant Web sites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
Sherrette Funn,
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
Below we provide projected average estimates for the next three years:
All written comments will be available for public inspection at
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 Office of Management and Budget control number.
The Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Clinical and Preventative Services, Division of Behavioral Health (DBH), is accepting applications for a cooperative agreement for Youth Regional Treatment Center Aftercare Pilot Projects (Short Title: Youth Aftercare). This program was established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017, Public Law 115-31, 131 Stat. 135 (2017). This program is authorized by 25 U.S.C. 13, the Snyder Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 25 U.S.C. 1665a and 1665g. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under 93.933.
According to data from the CDC Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey, American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) youth self-report higher rates of illicit substance use when compared to the general population. Substance use among AI/AN youth contributes to an increased risk of negative social problems that can range from delinquency to violence, including higher rates of suicide, and alcohol and drug-related deaths when compared to U.S. all-races (2014 Trends In Indian Health).
The IHS currently funds 11 Youth Residential Treatment Centers (YRTC) that provide a range of clinical services rooted in culturally relevant, holistic models of care. However, once AI/AN youth are discharged from the YRTC, they are faced with leaving a structured environment only to return home to families who may be unprepared to offer the needed support and where aftercare/case management resources can be limited.
The purpose of the YRTC Aftercare Pilot Project cooperative agreement is to address the gap in services that occurs when youth are discharged upon successful completion of a YRTC treatment program and return to their home community where necessary support systems may not exist. Insufficient options for continued care at home and in the community significantly decrease the likelihood of a continued journey of wellness for youth exiting the care of an YRTC. This pilot project will develop promising practices between YRTCs and Tribal communities to reduce alcohol and substance use relapse by identifying transitional services that can be culturally adapted to meet the needs of AI/AN youth to increase resiliency, self-coping, and provide support systems. By exploring solutions for how this continuum of care should take place after inpatient treatment, efforts will be made to establish community-based
Each application for the YRTC Aftercare Pilot Program will be required to address the following six objectives as outlined (and detailed in Section A, Part B—Proposed Approach) in their project narrative.
1. Provide aftercare and case management services.
2. Create and train community support systems in evidence-based care.
3. Identify and implement best practices for increasing access to transitional services.
4. Incorporate social media into aftercare practices.
5. Increase data collection for post residential discharged youth.
6. Evaluate and disseminate information among all YRTC facilities.
All six of the objectives must be addressed in the application. If an application submission does not address all of the objectives in the Project Narrative scope of work, the application will not be considered for funding.
The funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2017 is $810,000. The amount of funding identified for Year 2 and Year 3 of the cooperative agreement is $810,000. The amount of funding available for competing and continuation awards issued under this announcement is subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.
One award for $810,000 will be issued under this program announcement.
The project period is for three years and will run consecutively from November 1, 2017 to October 31, 2020.
Cooperative agreements awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are administered under the same policies as a grant. However, the funding agency (IHS) is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both IHS and the grantee. IHS will be responsible for activities listed under section A and the grantee will be responsible for activities listed under section B as stated:
The IHS assigned program official will monitor the overall progress of the awardee's execution of the requirements of the award: IHS award noted below as well as their adherence to the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreements. This includes providing guidance for required reports, developing of tools, and other products, interpreting program findings, and assisting with evaluations and overcoming any difficulties or performance issues encountered.
• Provide aftercare and case management services.
(a) Support for an additional YRTC coordinator or case manager to:
(i) Establish, in partnership with youth, a post treatment plan.
(ii) Develop partnerships with service providers and community programs at the community level.
(iii) Improve engagement with families and support systems of AI/AN youth participating in an YRTC program. Suggested activities may include travel assistance for family members to increase participation during youth treatment and positive parenting curriculum to parents while their youth is in care and post-treatment.
(b) Provide Peer Recovery Support Specialist certification.
(i) Increase placement of peer-to-peer support in partner community sites of youth participants.
(ii) Provide ongoing training to Peer Recovery Support Specialist from partner communities.
• Create and train community support systems in evidence-based care.
(a) This may include how to identify signs of relapse, how to identify signs of mental health distress, how to navigate community referral processes, and how to manage prescription drugs.
• Identify and implement best practices for increasing access to transitional services.
(a) This may include assistance with: Planning for education, referring to natural helpers, referral for housing, accompanying youth to outpatient or other community services, accessing culturally appropriate interventions, consultation with employers, in-home evaluations of family or living situations, parenting support, and transitioning to adult services.
• Incorporate social media into aftercare practices.
(a) Explore and identify new avenues for incorporating social media into aftercare practices (
• Increase data collection for post residential discharged AI/AN youth.
(a) Increase data collection for post residential discharged youth through established data collection plans including post treatment outcomes for AI/AN youth at 30, 60, 90 days, 6 months and one year through a data collection process. (See Section A Part D—Performance Measurement Plan and Evaluation.)
• Evaluate and disseminate information among all YRTC facilities.
(a) Develop, maintain, and disseminate comprehensive information on AI/AN youth aftercare practices to be shared among all YRTC leadership. This information should be focused on promising and best practices, service delivery, quality improvement, and strategies to be used among all YRTCs.
• Maintain open and consistent communication with the IHS program official on any financial or programmatic barriers to meeting the requirements of the award.
I.
To be eligible for this “New FY2018 Funding Opportunity” under this announcement, applicants must be one of the following as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603:
• A Federally-recognized Indian Tribe as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(14). The term “Indian Tribe” means any Indian Tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or group or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) [43 U.S.C. 1601
• A Tribal organization as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(26). The term “Tribal organization” has the meaning given the term in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (at 25 U.S.C. 5304(1)): “Tribal organization” means the recognized governing body of any Indian Tribe; any legally established organization of Indians which is
Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required, such as Tribal resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.
The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.
If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.
An Indian Tribe or Tribal organization that is proposing a project affecting another Indian Tribe must include
An official signed Tribal resolution must be received by the DGM prior to a Notice of Award (NoA) being issued to any applicant selected for funding. However, if an official signed Tribal resolution cannot be submitted with the electronic application submission prior to the official application deadline date, a draft Tribal resolution must be submitted by the deadline in order for the application to be considered complete and eligible for review. The draft Tribal resolution is not in lieu of the required signed resolution, but is acceptable until a signed resolution is received. If an official signed Tribal resolution is not received by DGM when funding decisions are made, then a NoA will not be issued to that applicant and they will not receive any IHS funds until such time as they have submitted a signed resolution to the Grants Management Specialist listed in this Funding Announcement.
Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.
An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS DGM by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (
The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at
Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204.
The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:
• Table of contents.
• Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.
• Application forms:
○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.
○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.
○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.
• Project Narrative (must be single-spaced and not exceed 10 pages).
○ Includes the statement of need, proposed scope of work, required objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, an Evaluation and Performance Measurement Plan, and a budget/budget narrative.
• Tribal Resolution(s).
• Letters of Support from organization's Board of Directors.
• 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).
• Biographical sketches for all Key Personnel.
• Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).
• Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).
• Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required in order to receive IDC).
• Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Financial Audit (if applicable).
Acceptable forms of documentation include:
○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or
○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site:
All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the Discrimination policy.
The project narrative (Parts A through D listed below) and budget/budget narrative should be a separate Word document not to exceed 12 pages total and must: Be single-spaced, type written, have consecutively numbered pages, use black type not smaller than 12 points, and be printed on one side only of standard size 8
Be sure to succinctly but completely answer all questions listed under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they will not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the Objective Review Committee (ORC) in becoming familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this possible cooperative agreement award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 12 pages will be reviewed. The 12 page limit for the project narrative and budget/budget narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, Tribal resolutions, table of contents, and/or other appendix items.
There are four (4) parts to the project narrative:
Part A—Statement of Need;
Part B—Project Narrative/Proposed Approach;
Part C—Organizational Capacity and Staffing/Administration; and,
Part D—Performance Measurement Plan and Evaluation;
Below are additional details about what must be included in the project narrative.
The statement of need describes the history and catchment area currently served by the applicant YRTC, including Tribal communities (“community” means the applicant's Tribe, village, Tribal organization, or consortium of Tribes or Tribal organizations). The statement of need provides the facts and evidence that support the need for the project and establishes that the YRTC understands the problems and can reasonably address them. The statement of need must not exceed two single-spaced pages. This section must also succinctly but completely answer the questions listed under the evaluation criteria in Section V.1.A Statement of Need.
• Describe the current service gaps, including disconnection between available services and unmet needs of AI/AN youth, up to and including age 24, and their families. This should include services at the YRTC and in communities where youth reside.
• Describe the need for an enhanced infrastructure to increase the capacity to implement, sustain, and improve effective aftercare activities offered to youth exiting YRTC care and any other service gaps and problems related to the need for infrastructure development within the YRTC.
State the purpose, goals and objectives of your proposed project. Clearly state how proposed activities address the needs detailed in the statement of need. Describe fully and clearly plans to meet the six objectives of this funding announcement outlined in the Purpose Section of this announcement. Each objective should be addressed with a corresponding timeframe. This section must succinctly but completely answer the questions listed under the evaluation criteria in Section V.1.B Project Narrative/Proposed Approach. Provide a work plan for year one project period that details expected key activities, accomplishments, and include responsible staff. [
Projects supported through the YRTC Aftercare shall address each objective with specific attention to activities detailed below:
1. Describe plans to increase capacity for aftercare/case management services:
(a) Detail how project will provide support for an additional YRTC coordinator or case management role to:
i. Establish, in partnership with youth, a post treatment plan.
ii. Develop partnerships with service providers and community programs at the community level.
iii. Improve engagement with families and support systems of AI/AN youth while in YRTC care. Suggested activities may include travel assistance for family members to increase participation during youth treatment and positive parenting curriculum to parents while their youth is in care and post-treatment.
(b) Provide Peer Recovery Support Specialist certification
i. Increase placement of peer-to-peer support in partnering community sites where youth reside after discharge.
ii. Provide ongoing training to Peer Recovery Support Specialists from local communities.
2. Describe a plan to create and train community support systems using evidence-based care.
(a) This may include how to identify signs of relapse, how to identify signs of mental health distress, how to navigate community referral processes, positive parenting, and how to manage prescription drugs.
3. Describe projected plans to identify and implement best practices for administering transitional services.
(a) This may include assistance with: Planning for education, referring to natural helpers, referral for housing, accompanying youth to outpatient or other community services, accessing culturally appropriate interventions, consultation with employers, home visiting programs, in-home evaluations of family or living situations, home visiting, parenting support, and transitioning to adult services.
4. Include expected sources and approach to explore and identify new avenues for incorporating social media into aftercare practices (
5. Describe a plan that will support data collection for post residential discharged youth through established data collection plans including post treatment outcomes for AI/AN youth at 30, 60, 90 days, 6 months and one year through a data collection process. (See Section V.1.D Performance Measurement Plan and Evaluation Plan.)
6. Describe a plan to develop evaluation and dissemination activities including lessons learned throughout the three years of funding. This should include presentations at conferences and webinars targeted at the IHS funded YRTCs.
This section should describe your organization's significant program activities and accomplishments over the past three years outlined by the goals listed under the Purpose Section of this announcement. Current staff and future positions should also be outlined. This section must succinctly but completely answer the questions listed under the evaluation criteria in Section V.1.C Organizational Capabilities and Staffing/Administration.
• Identify qualified professionals who will implement proposed grant activities, administer the grant, including progress and financial reports.
• Identify staff to maintain open and consistent communication with the IHS program official on any financial or programmatic barriers to meeting the requirements of the award.
• Describe the organization's plan to hire or provide salary costs for full-time equivalent (FTE) additional YRTC coordinator or case manager.
• Describe the organizations current system and ability to develop partnerships with service providers and community programs including families and support systems of AI/AN youth residents.
• Describe potential project partners and community resources in the catchment area that can participate in the planning process and infrastructure development.
This section of the application should describe efforts to collect and report project data that will support and demonstrate YRTC Aftercare Pilot Project activities. YRTC Aftercare grantees will be required to collect and report data pertaining to activities, processes and outcomes. Data collection activities should capture and document actions conducted throughout awarded years including those that will contribute to relevant project impact. This section should also describe applicant's plan to evaluate program activities including any evidence-based treatment programs implemented. The evaluation plan should describe expected results and any identified metrics to support program effectiveness. Evaluation plans should incorporate questions related to outcomes and process including
• Describe in a brief narrative a plan to monitor activities under each objective, demonstrate progress towards program outcomes and inform future program decisions over the three-year project period.
• Reporting on this plan will occur on an annual basis and at the end of the project period. IHS will work with awardees during the first six months of the project period to finalize an evaluation and performance measurement plan to better monitor the progress of the activities implemented and outcomes achieved.
• Describe proposed evaluation methods including performance measures and other data relevant to evaluation outcomes including intended results (
B. Budget and Budget Narrative (2 Pages)
This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable allowable, allocable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. The budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative. The budget and budget narrative should not exceed two pages. This section must succinctly but completely answer the questions listed under the evaluation criteria in Section V.1.E Budget and Budget Narrative.
Applications must be submitted electronically through
If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact
Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.
• Pre-award costs are not allowable.
• The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.
• Only one grant/cooperative agreement will be awarded per applicant.
• IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.
All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the
If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through
Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written approval must be submitted along with the hardcopy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Director of the DGM will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EDT, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding. Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or
Please be aware of the following:
• Please search for the application package in
• If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact
• Upon contacting
• Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through
• Please use the optional attachment feature in
• All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this funding announcement.
• After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from
• Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.
All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The
All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on sub-awards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier sub-recipients that no entity may receive a first-tier sub-award unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.
Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at
Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site:
The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The 10 page project narrative and 2 page budget/budget narrative should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. The project narrative and budget/budget narrative should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 65 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:
Applications will be reviewed and scored according to the quality of responses to the required application components in Sections A-E outlined below. In developing the required sections of this application, use the instructions provided for each section, which have been tailored to this program. The application must use the five sections (Sections A-E) listed below in developing the application. The applicant must place the required information in the correct section or it will not be considered for review. The application will be scored according to how well the applicant addresses the requirements for each section listed below. The number of points after each section heading is the maximum number of points the review committee may assign to that section. Although scoring weights are not assigned to individual bullets, each bullet is assessed deriving the overall section score.
The statement of need should not exceed two single-spaced pages. Applications will be evaluated based on following criteria:
• Identify the proposed catchment area and provide demographic information on the population(s) to receive services through the targeted systems or agencies,
• Based on the information and/or data currently available, document the need for an enhanced infrastructure to increase the capacity to implement, sustain, and improve effective aftercare activities offered to youth exiting YRTC care.
• Based on available data, describe the service gaps and other problems related to the need for infrastructure development within the YRTC. Identify the source of the data. Documentation of need may come from a variety of qualitative and quantitative sources. Examples of data sources for the quantitative data that could be used are local epidemiologic data (TECs, IHS area offices), state data (
The project narrative required components (listed as the four components in “Requirements for Project Narrative”) together should not exceed 10 single-spaced pages. Applications will be evaluated based on following criteria:
• Describe the purpose of the proposed project, including a clear statement of goals and objectives. The proposed project narrative is required to address all six objectives listed for Youth Aftercare.
1. Provide aftercare and case management services.
2. Create and train community support systems in evidence-based care.
3. Identify and implement best practices for increasing access to transitional services.
4. Incorporate social media into aftercare practices.
5. Increase data collection for post residential discharged youth.
6. Evaluate and disseminate information among all YRTC facilities.
• Describe how project activities will increase the capacity of a YRTC to improve the coordination of a collaborative behavioral health and wellness service systems including families and partner communities. Describe anticipated barriers and how these barriers will be addressed.
• Describe how the proposed project will address issues of diversity for AI/AN youth up to and including age 24 including race/ethnicity, gender, culture/cultural identity, language, sexual orientation, disability, and literacy.
• Describe how AI/AN youth up to and including age 24 and families may receive services and how they will be involved in the planning and implementation of the project.
• Describe how the efforts of the proposed project will be coordinated with any other related Federal grants, including IHS, SAMHSA, or BIA services provided in the community (if applicable).
• Provide a work plan for year one project period that details expected key activities, accomplishments, and include responsible staff. [
• Describe the management capability of the YRTC, applicant Tribe, and other participating organizations in administering similar cooperative agreements and projects.
• Identify staff to maintain open and consistent communication with the IHS program official on any financial or programmatic barriers to meeting the requirements of the award.
• Identify the department/division that will administer this project. Include a description of this entity, its function and its placement within the organization (Tribe, Tribal organization, or UIO) and its direct link to YRTC management.
• Discuss the applicant Tribe, Tribal organization, or UIO experience and capacity to provide culturally appropriate/competent services to the community and specific populations of focus.
• Describe the resources available for the proposed project (
• Identify other organization(s) that will participate in the proposed project. Describe their roles and responsibilities and demonstrate their commitment to the project. Include a list of these organizations as an attachment to the project proposal/application. In the attached list, indicate the organizations that the Tribe, Tribal organization, or UIO has worked with or currently works with. [
• Describe how project continuity will be maintained if/when there is a change in the operational environment (
• Provide a list of staff positions for the project, project director, project coordinator/caseworker, and other key personnel, showing the role of each and their level of effort and qualifications. Demonstrate successful project implementation for the level of effort budgeted for the behavioral health staff, project director, project coordinator, and other key staff.
• Include position descriptions as attachments to the application for the project director, project coordinator/caseworker, and all key personnel. Position descriptions should not exceed one page each. [
• For individuals that are currently on staff, include a biographical sketch (not to include personally identifiable information) for each individual that will be listed as the behavioral health staff, project director, project coordinator, and other key positions. Describe the experience of identified staff in mental health promotion, suicide and substance abuse prevention work in the community/communities. Include each biographical sketch as attachments to the project proposal/application. Biographical sketches should not exceed one page per staff member. Reviewers will not consider information past page one. [
• Personally Identifiable Information;
• Resumes; or
• Curriculum Vitae.
Describe plans to monitor activities under each objective, demonstrate progress towards program outcomes and inform future program decisions over the three-year project period. Reporting on this plan will occur on an annual basis and at the end of the project period. IHS will work with awardees during the first six months of the project period to finalize an evaluation and performance measurement plan to better monitor the progress of the activities implemented and outcomes achieved. Applications will be evaluated based on following criteria and should address the following points:
• Describe proposed data collection efforts (performance measures and associated data) and how you will use the data to answer evaluation questions. This should include (a data collection method, a data source, a data measurement tool, identified staff for data management, and a data collection timeline).
• Identify key program partners and describe how they will participate in the implementation of the evaluation plan (
• Describe data collection and evaluation of any proposed evidence-based care programs implemented throughout awarded years.
• Describe how evaluating findings will be used at the applicant level. Discuss how data collected (
• Discuss any barriers or challenges expected for implementing the plan, collecting data (
Applications will be evaluated based on following criteria:
• Include a line item budget for all expenditures identifying reasonable and allowable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative for Budget Year 1 only.
• Applicants should ensure that the budget and budget narrative are aligned with the project narrative. The Budget and Budget Narrative the applicant provides will be considered by reviewers in assessing the applicant's submission, along with the material in the Project Narrative. Questions to address include: What resources are needed to successfully carry out and manage the project? What other resources are available from the organization? Will new staff be recruited? Will outside consultants be required?
• For any outside consultants, include the total cost broken down by activity. This may be most pertinent for activities related to Objective 4.
• The budget and budget narrative must not exceed two single-spaced pages.
Projects must also include a brief project narrative and budget for years two and three (one additional page per year) addressing the developmental plans for each additional year of the project. [
• Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.
• Position descriptions for key staff.
• Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.
• Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).
• Current Indirect Cost Agreement.
• Organizational chart.
• Map of area identifying project location(s).
• Additional documents to support narrative (
Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS Program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (
To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.
The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (
Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval, 65, and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application. The summary statement will be sent to the Authorized Organizational Representative that is identified on the face page (SF-424) of the application. The IHS program office will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.
Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved,” but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2017 the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.
Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS grants management official announcing to the project director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.
Cooperative agreements are administered in accordance with the following regulations and policies:
A. The criteria as outlined in this program announcement.
B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR part 75.
C. Grants Policy:
• HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.
D. Cost Principles:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.
E. Audit Requirements:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.
This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.
Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA)
The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) the imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Per DGM policy, all reports are required to be submitted electronically by attaching them as a “Grant Note” in GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please
The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.
Program progress reports are required annually, within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, a summary of progress to date or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period.
Federal Financial Report (FFR or SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at
Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: The Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.
This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.
The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.
IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting.
For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at:
Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person's race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS provides guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see
The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see
Pursuant to 45 CFR 80.3(d), an individual shall not be deemed subjected to discrimination by reason of his/her exclusion from benefits limited by federal law to individuals eligible for benefits and services from the IHS.
Recipients will be required to sign the HHS-690 Assurance of Compliance form which can be obtained from the following Web site:
The IHS is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000) over the period of performance. An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that a federal awarding agency previously entered. IHS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR 75.205.
As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/project.
As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and the HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, effective January 1, 2016, the IHS must require a non-federal entity or an applicant for a federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the IHS or pass-through entity all violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award.
Disclosures must be sent in writing to:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Division of Grants Management, ATTN: Robert Tarwater, Director, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857. (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line). Office: (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, ATTN: Mandatory Grant Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 Independence Avenue SW., Cohen Building, Room 5527, Washington, DC 20201, URL:
Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371 Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (See 2 CFR parts 180 & 376 and 31 U.S.C. 3321).
1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Raven Ross, Division of Behavioral Health, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 08N34-A, Rockville, MD 20857, Fax: (301) 594-6213, Email:
2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: Andrew Diggs, Senior Grants Management Specialist, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2241, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email:
3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email:
The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice; extension of due dates.
The Indian Health Service published a notice in the
Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the Division of Grants Management main line (301) 443-5204, or Fax: (301) 594-0899.
In the FR notice of August 14, 2017 (FR 2017-17102), the corrections are:
On page 37877, in the first column, under the heading
•
•
•
•
•
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice; extension of due dates.
The Indian Health Service published a notice in the
Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the Division of Grants Management (301) 443-5204, or Fax: (301) 594-0899.
In the FR notice of August 14, 2017, (FR 2017-17103), the corrections are made:
On page 37870, in the first column, under the heading
•
•
•
•
•
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
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 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 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 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.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 13, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
The designation of Sudan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is set to expire on November 2, 2017. After reviewing country conditions and consulting with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) has determined that conditions in Sudan have sufficiently improved for TPS purposes and no longer support a designation for TPS. Therefore, the Secretary is terminating the TPS designation of Sudan. To provide for an orderly transition, this termination is effective November 2, 2018, twelve months following the end of the current designation.
Nationals of Sudan (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan) who have been
The designation of Sudan for TPS is terminated, effective at 11:59 p.m., local time, on November 2, 2018. The 60-day re-registration period runs from October 11, 2017 through December 11, 2017. (
• You can contact Alexander King, Branch Chief, Waivers and Temporary Services Branch, Service Center Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington DC 20529-2060; or by phone at (202) 272-8377 (this is not a toll-free number). Note: The phone number provided here is solely for questions regarding this TPS Notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries.
• For further information on TPS, including guidance on the application process and additional information on eligibility, please visit the USCIS TPS Web page at
• Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
• Further information will also be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this Notice.
Through this Notice, DHS sets forth procedures necessary for eligible nationals of Sudan (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan) to re-register for TPS and to apply for renewal of their EADs with USCIS. Re-registration is limited to persons who have previously registered for TPS under the designation of Sudan and whose applications have been granted.
• For individuals who have already been granted TPS under Sudan's designation, the 60-day re-registration period runs from October 11, 2017 through December 11, 2017. USCIS will issue new EADs with a November 2, 2018 expiration date to eligible Sudan TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs. Given the timeframes involved with processing TPS re-registration applications, DHS recognizes that not all re-registrants will receive new EADs before their current EADs expire on November 2, 2017. However, provided a Sudan TPS beneficiary timely re-registers and properly files an application for an EAD during the 60-day re-registration period, his or her EAD will be automatically extended for an additional period not to exceed 180 days from the date the current EAD expires,
• TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a country designated for TPS under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), or to eligible persons without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country.
• During the TPS designation period and so long as a TPS beneficiary continues to meet the requirements of TPS, he or she is eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and is authorized to work and obtain an EAD.
• TPS beneficiaries may also apply for and be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion.
• The granting of TPS does not result in or lead to lawful permanent resident status.
• To qualify for TPS, beneficiaries must meet the eligibility standards at INA section 244(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2).
• When the Secretary terminates a country's TPS designation, beneficiaries return to the same immigration status they maintained before TPS, if any (unless that status has since expired or been terminated), or to any other lawfully obtained immigration status they received while registered for TPS that is still valid on the date TPS terminates.
On November 4, 1997, the Attorney General designated Sudan for TPS due to: (1) An ongoing armed conflict, and that because of such conflict, requiring the return of nationals to Sudan would pose a serious threat to their personal safety; and, (2) extraordinary and temporary conditions within Sudan that prevented nationals from returning to Sudan in safety.
Section 244(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1), authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary determines that certain country conditions exist.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a country's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, must review the conditions in a foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether the conditions for the TPS designation continue to be met.
DHS and the Department of State (DOS) have reviewed the conditions in Sudan. Based on this review and consultation, the Secretary has determined that conditions in Sudan have sufficiently improved for TPS purposes. Termination of the TPS designation of Sudan is required because it no longer meets the statutory conditions for designation. The ongoing armed conflict no longer prevents the return of nationals of Sudan to all regions of Sudan without posing a serious threat to their personal safety. Further, extraordinary and temporary conditions within Sudan no longer prevent nationals from returning in safety to all regions of Sudan. To provide for an orderly transition, this termination is effective November 2, 2018, twelve months following the end of the current designation.
Conflict in Sudan is limited to Darfur and the Two Areas (South Kordofan and Blue Nile states). As a result of the continuing armed conflict in these regions, hundreds of thousands of Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries. However, in Darfur, toward the end of 2016 and through the first half of 2017, parties to the conflict renewed a series of time-limited unilateral cessation of hostilities declarations, resulting in a reduction in violence and violent rhetoric from the parties to the conflict. The remaining conflict is limited and does not prevent the return of nationals of Sudan to all regions of Sudan without posing a serious threat to their personal safety.
Above-average harvests have moderately improved food security across much of Sudan. While populations in conflict-affected areas continue to experience acute levels of food insecurity, there has also been some improvement in access for humanitarian actors to provide much-needed humanitarian aid.
Although Sudan's human rights record remains extremely poor in general, conditions on the ground no longer prevent all Sudanese nationals from returning in safety.
Taking into account the geographically limited scope of the conflict, the renewed series of unilateral cessation of hostilities declarations and concomitant reduction in violence and violent rhetoric from the parties to the conflict, and improvements in access for humanitarian actors to provide aid, the Secretary has determined that the ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions that served as the basis for Sudan's most recent designation have sufficiently improved such that they no longer prevent nationals of Sudan from returning in safety to all regions of Sudan. Based on this determination, the Secretary has concluded that termination of the TPS designation of Sudan is required because Sudan no longer meets the statutory conditions for designation. To provide for an orderly transition, this termination is effective November 2, 2018, twelve months following the end of the current designation. DHS estimates that there are approximately 1,040 nationals of Sudan (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan) who currently receive TPS benefits.
By the authority vested in me as Secretary under INA section 244, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, I have determined, after consultation with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies, that Sudan no longer meets the conditions for designation of TPS under 244(b)(1) of the Act. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1). Accordingly, I order as follows:
(1) Pursuant to INA section 244(b)(3)(B), to provide for an orderly transition, the designation of Sudan for TPS is terminated effective at 11:59 p.m., local time, on November 2, 2018, 12 months following the end of the current designation.
(2) Information concerning the termination of TPS for nationals of Sudan (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan) will be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this Notice and through the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283. This information will be published on the USCIS Web site at
To re-register for TPS based on the designation of Sudan, you must submit each of the following applications:
1. Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821):
• You do not need to pay the fee for the Form I-821.
2. Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765):
• If you want an EAD, you must pay the fee (or request a fee waiver) for the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765), regardless of your age.
• If you do not want an EAD, you do not have to pay the Form I-765 fee.
If you do not want to request an EAD now, you may also file Form I-765 later to request an EAD and pay the fee (or request a fee waiver), provided that you still have TPS or a pending TPS application. Your EAD application will be considered timely filed even if the date on your current TPS-related EAD has expired. However, if you do not timely re-register and properly file an EAD application, the validity of your current EAD will end on November 2, 2017. Accordingly, you must also properly file your EAD application during the 60-day re-registration period for your current EAD to be automatically extended for 180 days (
You must submit both completed forms together. If you are unable to pay the application form fee for the I-765 and/or biometrics fee, you may complete a Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912) or submit a personal letter requesting a fee waiver with satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the application forms and fees for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS Web page at
Biometrics (such as fingerprints) are required for all applicants 14 years and older. Those applicants must submit a biometric services fee. As previously stated, if you are unable to pay for the biometric services fee, you may complete a Form I-912 or submit a personal letter requesting a fee waiver with satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the biometric services fee, please visit the USCIS Web site at
You should file as soon as possible within the 60-day re-registration period so USCIS can process your application and issue any EAD promptly. Properly filing early will also allow you to have time to re-file your application before the deadline and receive a Form I-797C demonstrating your EAD's automatic extension, should USCIS deny your fee waiver request. If, however, you receive a denial of your fee waiver request and are unable to re-file by the re-registration deadline, you may still re-file your I-765 application. This situation will be reviewed to determine whether you established good cause for late re-registration. However, you are urged to re-file within 45 days of the date on any USCIS fee waiver denial notice, if possible.
Although a re-registering TPS beneficiary age 14 and older must pay the biometric services fee (but not the initial Form I-821 fee) when filing a TPS re-registration application, you may decide to wait to request an EAD, and therefore not pay the Form I-765 fee (or request a fee waiver) until after USCIS has approved your TPS re-registration, if you are eligible. If you choose to do this, you would file the Form I-821 with the biometrics services fee, if applicable, (or request a fee waiver) and the Form I-765 without the fee and without requesting an EAD.
Mail your application for TPS to the proper address in Table 1.
If you were granted TPS by an Immigration Judge (IJ) or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and you wish to request an EAD or are re-registering for the first time following a grant of TPS by an IJ or the BIA, please mail your application to the appropriate mailing address in Table 1. When re-registering and/or requesting an EAD based on an IJ/BIA grant of TPS, please include a copy of the IJ or BIA order granting you TPS with your application. This will aid in the verification of your grant of TPS and processing of your application, as USCIS may not have received records of your grant of TPS by either the IJ or the BIA.
The filing instructions on the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821) list all the documents needed to establish eligibility for TPS. You may also find information on the acceptable documentation and other requirements for applying or registering for TPS on the USCIS Web site at
If one or more of the questions listed in Part 4, Question 2 of the Form I-821 applies to you, then you must submit an explanation on a separate sheet(s) of paper and/or additional documentation.
To get case status information about your TPS application, including the status of a request for an EAD, you can check Case Status Online at
Provided that you currently have a Sudan TPS-based EAD, you may be eligible to have the validity of your current EAD extended for 180 days (through May 1, 2018) if you:
• Are a national of Sudan (or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in Sudan);
• Received an EAD under the designation of Sudan for TPS;
• Have an EAD with a marked expiration date of November 2, 2017, bearing the notation “A-12” or “C-19” on the face of the card under “Category;”
• Timely re-registered for TPS during the 60-day re-registration period; and
• Properly filed an application for an EAD during the 60-day re-registration period.
You must timely re-register for TPS in accordance with the procedures described in this Notice if you would like to maintain your TPS and in order to have the validity of your current EAD extended by 180 days. You are strongly encouraged to file your EAD renewal application as early as possible during the 60-day re-registration period to avoid lapses in your employment authorization.
You can find a list of acceptable document choices on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Form I-9. You can find additional detailed information about Form I-9 on the
You may present any document from List A (which provides evidence of both identity and employment authorization), or one document from List B (which provides evidence of your identity) together with one document from List C (which is evidence of employment authorization), or you may present an acceptable receipt for List A, List B, or List C documents as described in the Form I-9 Instructions. An EAD is an acceptable document under List A. Employers may not reject a document based on a future expiration date.
If your EAD has an expiration date of November 2, 2017, and states “A-12” or “C-19” under “Category,” and you timely and properly filed an EAD renewal application during the 60-day re-registration period, you may choose to present your EAD to your employer together with the Form I-797C Notice of Action (showing the qualifying eligibility category of either A-12 or C-19) as a List A document that provides evidence of your identity and employment authorization for Form I-9 through May 1, 2018, unless your TPS has been finally withdrawn or your request for TPS has been finally denied. See the subsection titled, “
To minimize confusion over this extension at the time of hire, you should explain to your employer that your EAD has been automatically extended through May 1, 2018. You may also provide your employer with a copy of this
Even though you may be eligible to have your EAD automatically extended, your employer will need to ask you about your continued employment authorization no later than before you start work on November 3, 2017. You will need to present your employer with evidence that you are still authorized to work. Once presented, you may correct your employment authorization expiration date in Section 1 and your employer should correct the employment authorization document expiration date in Section 2 of Form I-9. See the subsection titled, “
When you properly file your Form I-765 to renew your current EAD, you will receive a USCIS receipt notice (Form I-797C). The receipt notice will state that your current “A-12” or “C-19” coded EAD is automatically extended for 180 days. You may show this receipt notice to your employer along with your EAD to confirm your EAD has been automatically extended through May 1, 2018, unless your TPS has been finally withdrawn or your request for TPS has been finally denied. You may also show this
The last day of the automatic EAD extension is May 1, 2018. Before you start work on May 2, 2018, your employer must reverify your employment authorization. At that time, you must present any document from List A or any document from List C on Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents, or an acceptable List A or List C receipt described in the Form I-9 Instructions to reverify employment authorization. Your employer should either complete Section 3 of the Form I-9 originally completed for you; or if this section has already been completed or if the version of Form I-9 has expired (check the date in the bottom left-hand corner of the form), complete Section 3 of a new Form I-9 ensuring it is the most current version. Note that your employer may not specify which List A or List C document you must present and cannot reject an acceptable receipt.
No. When completing Form I-9, including reverifying employment authorization, employers must accept any documentation that appears on the appropriate “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Form I-9 that reasonably appears to be genuine and that relates to you, or an acceptable List A, List B (for new hires only), or List C receipt. Employers may not request documentation that does not appear on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents.” Therefore, employers may not request proof of Sudanese citizenship or proof of re-registration for TPS when completing Form I-9 for new hires or reverifying the employment authorization of current employees. If the expired EAD with category A-12 or C-19 is presented with the Form I-797C Notice of Action as described herein, an employer should accept this document combination as a valid List A document so long as the EAD reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee. Refer to the Note to Employees section of this Notice for important information about your rights if your employer rejects lawful documentation, requires additional documentation, or otherwise discriminates against you based on your citizenship or immigration status, or your national origin.
As proof of the automatic extension of your employment authorization, you may present your expired EAD with category A-12 or C-19 in combination with the Form I-797C Notice of Action showing that the EAD renewal application was timely filed and that the qualifying eligibility category is either A-12 or C-19. Unless your TPS has been finally withdrawn or your request for TPS has been finally denied, this document combination is considered an unexpired Employment Authorization Document (Form I-766) under List A. When completing Form I-9 for a new job you are starting before May 2, 2018,
1. For Section 1, you should:
a. Check “An alien authorized to work until” and enter the date that is 180 days from the date your current EAD expires (May 1, 2018) as the “expiration date, if applicable, mm/dd/yyyy”; and
b. Enter your Alien Number/USCIS number or A-Number where indicated (your EAD or other document from DHS will have your USCIS Number or A-Number printed on it; the USCIS number is the same as your A-Number without the A prefix).
2. When completing Section 2, employers should:
a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended for 180 days by ensuring:
• It is in category A-12 or C-19;
• The “received date” on Form I-797 is on or before the end of the 60-day re-registration period stated in this Notice; and
• The category code on the EAD is the same category code on Form I-797C, noting that employers should consider category codes A-12 and C-19 to be the same category code.
b. Write in the document title;
c. Enter the issuing authority;
d. Provide the document number; and
e. Insert May 1, 2018, the date that is 180 days from the date the current EAD expires. By the start of work on May 2, 2018, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3 of the Form I-9.
If you are an existing employee who presented a TPS-related EAD that was valid when you first started your job and your employment authorization has now been automatically extended because you timely and properly filed a new application for employment authorization during the 60-day re-registration period, you may present your expired EAD with category A-12 or C-19 in combination with the Form I-797C Notice of Action. The Form I-797C should show that the EAD renewal application was timely filed and that the qualifying eligibility category is either A-12 or C-19. To avoid confusion, you may also provide your employer a copy of this
1. For Section 1, you may:
a. Draw a line through the expiration date in Section 1;
b. Write the date that is 180 days from the date your current EAD expires (May 1, 2018) above the previous date (November 2, 2017); and
c. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 1.
2. For Section 2, employers should:
a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended for 180 days by ensuring:
• It is in category A-12 or C-19;
• The “received date” on Form I-797 is on or before the end of the 60-day re-registration period stated in this Notice; and
• The category code on the EAD is the same category code on Form I-797C, noting that employers should consider category codes A-12 and C-19 to be the same category code;
b. Draw a line through the expiration date written in Section 2;
c. Write the date that is 180 days from the date the employee's current EAD expires (May 1, 2018) above the previous date (November 2, 2017); and
d. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 2.
This is not considered a reverification. Employers do not need to complete Section 3 until either the 180-day extension has ended or the employee presents a new document to show continued employment authorization, whichever is sooner. By May 2, 2018, when the employee's automatically extended employment authorization has ended, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3.
Employers may create a case in E-Verify for a new employee using the Form I-797C receipt information provided on Form I-9. The receipt number entered as the document number on Form I-9 should be entered into the document number field in E-Verify.
E-Verify automated the verification process for employees whose TPS-related EAD was automatically extended. If you have an employee who is a TPS beneficiary who provided a TPS-related EAD when he or she first started working for you, you will receive a “Work Authorization Documents Expiring” case alert when the auto-extension period for this EAD is about to expire. This indicates that you should update Form I-9 in accordance with the instructions above. By the employee's start of work on May 2, 2018, employment authorization must be reverified in Section 3. Employers should not use E-Verify for reverification.
Employers are reminded that the laws requiring proper employment eligibility verification and prohibiting unfair immigration-related employment practices remain in full force. This Notice does not supersede or in any way limit applicable employment verification rules and policy guidance, including those rules setting forth reverification requirements. For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employers may call USCIS at 888-464-4218 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email USCIS at
For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employees may call USCIS at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email USCIS at
To comply with the law, employers must accept any document or combination of documents from the Lists of Acceptable Documents if the documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee,
Employers may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold pay, lower pay, or take any adverse action against an employee based on the employee's decision to contest a TNC or because the case is still pending with E-Verify. A Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) case result is received when E-Verify cannot verify an employee's employment eligibility. An employer may terminate employment based on a case result of FNC. Work-authorized employees who receive an FNC may call USCIS for assistance at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028). For more information about E-Verify-related discrimination or to report an employer for discrimination in the E-Verify process based on citizenship, immigration status, or national origin, contact IER's Worker Hotline at 800-255-7688 (TTY 800-237-2515). Additional information about proper nondiscriminatory Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) and E-Verify procedures is available on the IER Web site at
While Federal Government agencies must follow the guidelines laid out by the Federal Government, state and local government agencies establish their own rules and guidelines when granting certain benefits. Each state may have different laws, requirements, and determinations about what documents you need to provide to prove eligibility for certain benefits. Whether you are applying for a Federal, state, or local government benefit, you may need to provide the government agency with documents that show you are a TPS beneficiary and/or show you are authorized to work based on TPS. Examples of such documents are:
(1) Your current EAD;
(2) A copy of your receipt notice (Form I-797C) for your application to renew your current EAD providing an automatic extension of your currently expired or expiring EAD;
(3) A copy of your Application for Temporary Protected Status Notice of Action (Form I-797) for this re-registration; and
(4) A copy of your past or current Application for Temporary Protected Status Notice of Action (Form I-797), if you received one from USCIS.
Check with the government agency regarding which document(s) the agency will accept. Some benefit-granting agencies use the USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to confirm the current immigration status of applicants for public benefits. In most cases, SAVE provides an automated electronic response to benefit-granting agencies within seconds, but, occasionally, verification can be delayed. You can check the status of your SAVE verification by using CaseCheck at the following link:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until December 11, 2017.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0116 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2010-0008. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until December 11, 2017.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0020 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0024. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. This is a one-time collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW. (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The United States Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) in Section 3(b)(6) defines a Public Housing Agency, in part, as: “Except as provided in subparagraph (b), . . . any State, county, municipality, or other governmental entity or public body (or agency or instrumentality thereof) which is authorized to engage in or assist in the development or operation of public housing.” 42 U.S.C. 1437a. The section includes additional provisions related to PHAs operating Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The 1937 Act therefore includes a reference to applicable state and local laws that PHAs operate pursuant to. HUD's regulations, at 24 CFR 982.4, defines a PHA's Jurisdiction as, “the area in which the PHA has authority under State and local law to administer the program.”
HUD is proposing an information collection regarding PHAs' applicable jurisdictions, also known as service areas, in which they are authorized to operate under state and local law. Through the online tool, HUD will present PHAs with estimates of their service area boundaries, based on the locations of the PHA's public housing unit and Housing Choice Vouchers in relation to Units of General Local Government. HUD is aware that these initial estimates may not reflect the PHA's defined service area in accordance with State and local law, therefore, PHAs will be provided an opportunity to revise HUD's initial estimates using the online tool. When revising HUD's estimates, PHAs will be instructed to include in their revisions the areas in which they are authorized to operate under state and local law, not only the areas in which they currently operate. This means including areas that the PHA may have no public housing developments or HCVs, but where the PHA could operate those programs. If the PHA believes that HUD's estimate of its service area is accurate, the PHA will be asked to validate or accept HUD's estimation within the online tool.
The information collection described in this Notice will use an online electronic methodology intended to reduce administrative costs for PHAs and the federal government. The information obtained through this information collection is intended to assist in HUD program operations and in providing data to HUD's program participants, stakeholders, and the.
Collecting PHA service area boundaries in a simple electronic format will aid in the provision of data that can be used in conducting the statement of housing needs assessments as required by the PHA Annual Plan pursuant to 24 CFR 903.7. The information will be used by HUD to provide data to PHAs for use in completing Assessments of Fair Housing. Such information is also highly relevant for informing Housing Choice Voucher policy decisions, including those related to mobility and portability. HUD itself will utilize the information to inform operations of the public housing, Housing Choice Voucher and other programs, and for estimating the impact of changes in Fair Market Rents, including Small Area Fair Market Rents. The information may also be useful for the general public, for instance, in locating local affordable housing providers and increasing awareness of local affordable housing options.
The use of a geospatial data tool to collect this information has the advantage of simplifying and minimizing the administrative costs as well as directly linking the information to existing data resources without the need for additional cost to the federal government.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(5) Whether this information collection will result in more accurate data that will enable PHAs to conduct meaningful analyses of their programs.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) is developing a system called the Loan Origination System (ONAP-LOS) to support the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program. The ONAP-LOS system will deliver automated processes for case registration, reservation of funds, issuance of loan guarantee certificates, and lender registration and re-certification. This system will capture and maintain data across the following major information categories: Lenders, borrowers, properties, and loan. The enhanced enterprise solution will provide participating lender partners with clarity and transparency around the ONAP enforcement efforts and it will expand access to credit for eligible borrowers. The initial release of the ONAP-LOS will deliver the following high-level capabilities:
ONAP designed the new system to reduce the number of forms needed and the time to prepare the forms while ensuring the highest level of security and privacy protections. ONAP-LOS is available to all lenders with direct guarantee approval, upon completion of scheduled training.
ONAP operates the Section 184-A program for eligible native Hawaiians. The program is designed to offer home ownership, property rehabilitation, and new construction opportunities for eligible native Hawaiian individuals and families wanting to own a home on Hawaiian home lands. The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 added a new Section 184A to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 which authorized the Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Program. The regulations for Section 184-A are found at 24 CFR part 1007. This Paperwork Reduction Act package includes all forms required for the Section 184-A program.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information for Applicant/Tenant's Consent to the Release of Information and the Authorization for the Release of Information/Privacy Act Notice. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5564 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 3178, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The Jobs Plus Pilot Program Information Collection represents a revision to an existing information request. The OMB approval number for this collection is 2577- 0281. The information provided by the eligible applicants will be reviewed and evaluated by HUD. The information to be collected by HUD will be used to preliminarily rate applications, to determine eligibility for the Jobs Plus Grant Competition and to establish grant amounts. The Jobs Plus Pilot Grant Competition Application will be used to determine eligibility and funding for recipients. Respondents of this information collection will be public housing agencies. Although OMB approved Forms are used for information collection, applicants will provide quantitative and qualitative
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5564 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
Pursuant to § 6(j)(2)(A)(iii) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, HUD established procedures in the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) rule for a public housing agencies (PHAs) to appeal a troubled assessment designation (§ 902.69). The PHAS rule in §§ 902.24 and 902.68 also provides that under certain circumstances PHAs may submit a request for a database adjustment and technical review, respectively, of physical condition inspection results.
Pursuant to the Office of Housing Physical Condition of Multifamily Properties regulation at § 200.857(d) and (e), multifamily property owners also have the right, under certain circumstances, to submit a request for a database adjustment and technical review, respectively, of physical condition inspection results.
Appeals, when granted, change assessment scores and designations; database adjustments and technical reviews, when granted, change property scores. These changes result in more accurate assessments.
Section 902.60 of the PHAS rule also provides that, in extenuating circumstances, PHAs may request an extension of time to submit required unaudited financial information. When granted, an extension of time postpones the imposition of sanctions for a late submission.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 as amended.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Betteravia Ranches, LLC for an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The permit would authorize take of the federally endangered California tiger salamander (Santa Barbara distinct population segment) and the federally threatened California red-legged frog, incidental to otherwise lawful activities associated with the Curletti Farming Project draft low-effect habitat conservation plan. We invite public comment.
Written comments should be received on or before November 13, 2017.
•
•
Rachel Henry, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 805-677-3312 (phone), or at the Ventura address in
We have received an application from Betteravia Ranches, LLC (applicant) for an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Santa Barbara distinct population segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander was listed by the Service as endangered on September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57242). The California red-legged frog was listed by the Service as threatened on May 23, 1996 (61 FR 25813). Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. “Take” is defined under the ESA to include the following activities: “[T]o harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532); however, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. Under the ESA, protections for federally listed plants differ from the protections afforded to federally listed animals. Issuance of an incidental take permit also must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species. All species included in the incidental take permit would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)).
The applicant has applied for a permit for incidental take of the California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog. The potential take will occur in association with activities necessary for the implementation of the installation, operation and maintenance of row crop agriculture. The HCP includes avoidance and minimization measures for the covered species and mitigation for unavoidable loss of occupied upland habitat through establishment of a conservation easement on applicant-owned land.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that issuance of the incidental take permit is neither a major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
If you wish to comment on the permit application, draft HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by one of the methods in
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 view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Mr. Robert Campbell for an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The permit would authorize take of the federally endangered California tiger salamander (Santa Barbara distinct population segment), incidental to otherwise lawful activities associated with the Campbell Home Ranch draft low-effect habitat conservation plan. We invite public comment.
Written comments should be received on or before November 13, 2017.
•
•
Rachel Henry, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 805-677-3312 (phone), or at the Ventura address in
We have received an application from Mr. Robert Campbell (applicant) for an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Santa Barbara distinct population segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander was listed by the Service as endangered on September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57242). Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. “Take” is defined under the ESA to include the following activities: “[T]o harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532); however, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. Under the ESA, protections for federally listed plants differ from the protections afforded to federally listed animals. Issuance of an incidental take permit also must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species. All species included in the incidental take permit would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)).
The applicant has applied for a permit for incidental take of the California tiger salamander. The potential take will occur in association with activities necessary for the installation and operation of vineyard, berries and other agricultural development activities and/or construction of a residential development including one single-family residence. The HCP includes avoidance and minimization measures for the covered species and mitigation for unavoidable loss of occupied upland habitat through establishment of a conservation easement on applicant-owned land.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that issuance of the incidental take permit is neither a major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
If you wish to comment on the permit application, draft HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by one of the methods in
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 view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received an application for a Recordable Disclaimer of Interest (RDI) from RKE-2 Real Estate, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, pursuant to Section 315 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, and the implementing regulations for certain surface land located in Harris County, Texas. This Notice is intended to inform the public of the pending application, give notice of BLM's intention to grant the requested DRI, and provide a public comment period for the proposed Disclaimer of Interest.
Comments on this action should be received by January 9, 2018. Absent any valid objection, this Notice will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior and an RDI may be issued January 9, 2018.
Additional information pertaining to this application can be reviewed in case file TXNM136311 located in the BLM Oklahoma Field Office, 201 Stephenson Parkway, Room 1200, Norman, OK 73072-2037. Written comments must be sent to the Deputy State Director, Lands and Resources, BLM, New Mexico State Office, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, NM 87502-0115.
John Ledbetter, Realty Specialist, BLM Oklahoma Field Office, (405) 579-7172,
RKE-2 Real Estate, LLC, submitted an application for a Disclaimer of Interest pursuant to Section 315 of the FLPMA, as amended, and the implementing regulations in 43 CFR subpart 1864. The purpose of this Disclaimer is to remove a cloud on the title of the surface estate of a parcel of land situated in Harris County, Texas.
By deed dated October 6, 1936, the United States Department of Agriculture obtained multiple tracts of land in Harris County, Texas. In describing the acquired land, the acquisition deed first cited the legal description as “Lots 1 to 16 inclusive of Block 18 of Highland Farms,” as well as multiple other tracts. Following this initial description of the lots and blocks, the deed continued by restating the description of the same area as “more particularly described by metes and bounds,” and went on to cite a lengthy metes and bounds description.
On January 1, 1944, the United States disposed of these acquired properties, except and reserving to the United States three-quarters of the oil, gas, coal, and other mineral rights. The resulting quitclaim deed cited the same metes and bounds description that was used in the 1936 acquisition deed, omitting the lots and blocks description. Thereafter, certain subsequent deeds, purporting to convey this same property, cited the lots and blocks descriptions included in the 1936 deed. It was apparently unknown at the time and did not become known until sometime later that these two descriptions of the same land from the 1936 deed did not match exactly. Due to the 1936 deed legal description inconsistency, the 1944 deed and other subsequent deeds were plagued with the same inconsistency in the description. The historical evidence provided by the applicant in the form of deeds and correctional documents demonstrate and support that the two descriptions used in the 1936 acquisition deed were not identical. This inconsistency remains to date and causes a cloud on the title.
The BLM New Mexico State Office Cadastral Survey Program has reviewed and compared the legal land descriptions of the 1936 and 1944 deeds. According to the Land Surveyor Report dated September 26, 2016, the land description in the two deeds do not appear to be identical. However, since the subdivision plat is lacking in detail, and the two descriptions purport to describe the same property, the metes and bounds description must be either based on a survey the BLM does not have access to, or is the wrong interpretation of the plat. The discrepancy in descriptions manifests itself as a 0.2813-acre triangular parcel within Lot 16, Block 18, Highland Farms, and creates a cloud on the title. The BLM believes that the intent of the 1944 disposition deed was to dispose of the entire surface estate of the lot acquired in 1936, and not to reserve this triangular parcel. Therefore, in order to remove the cloud on the title to the lot, the BLM intends to disclaim the land described as:
All of Lot 16, Block 18, Highland Farms according to the plat or map recorded in Volume 7, Page 60 of the Map Records of Harris County, Texas (surface estate only).
This proposed RDI does not address any mineral interest that may still be vested with the United States of America.
The public is hereby notified that comments may be submitted to the Deputy State Director, Lands and Resources at the address shown above within the comment period identified in the notice. Any adverse comments will be evaluated by the State Director who may modify or vacate this action and issue a final determination.
In the absence of any valid objection, this Notice will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior and a RDI may be issued 90 days from publication of this Notice.
Comments, including names and street addresses of commenters, will be available for public review at the BLM New Mexico State Office (see address above), during regular business hours, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 CFR 1864.2(a).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), through the Worland Field Office, Worland, Wyoming, intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Alkali Creek Reservoir Project (Project). The BLM, through this Notice, is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues.
Comments may be submitted in writing until November 13, 2017. In order to be included in the analysis, all comments must be received prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period or 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later. The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public participation, as appropriate. The dates and locations of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through the local news media, newspapers, and the BLM ePlanning Web site at:
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal are available for public review at the BLM Worland Field Office and on the BLM ePlanning Web site at:
Holly Elliott, Planning & Environmental Coordinator, telephone: 307-347-5100; address: 101 S 23rd Street, Worland, Wyoming 82401; email:
This Notice initiates the public scoping process for the EIS. The BLM intends to prepare an EIS to support the decision making for the proposed Project and conduct a public scoping period to seek input on the preliminary issues identified regarding this proposal. The proposed Project is located in the Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming.
The areas described, including both Federal and nonpublic lands, aggregate 640 acres.
The proposed action may require an amendment to the Worland Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP), approved September 2015.
By this Notice, the BLM is complying with requirements in 43 CFR 1610.2(c)to notify the public of potential amendments to land use plans. If a land use plan amendment is necessary, the BLM will integrate the land use planning process with the NEPA process for this project.
The Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDO) proposes to fund and construct a reservoir near Hyattville, Wyoming. The proposed construction would create a 294-acre reservoir on Alkali Creek. The reservoir would impound approximately 7,994 acre-feet of water under normal conditions and 9,872 acre-feet when under flood conditions. The reservoir would provide late-season irrigation water for portions of the Nowood River Watershed. The irrigation pool would be available either directly or through exchange for irrigation water.
The proposed Project construction would disturb approximately 78 acres in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project location, which includes the embankment, spillways, Anita Ditch and Anita Supplemental Ditch improvements, access road, and parking area.
Preliminary issues include: Impacts to wetlands and cultural sites (properties), visual resources, Greater sage-grouse habitat, public health and safety, recreation, ground and surface waters, mineral development, and wildlife habitat.
The BLM seeks resource information and data for public land values (
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM at any public scoping meeting, or you may submit them to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the
The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement process under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
The BLM will evaluate any authorizations and actions proposed in the EIS to determine if they conform to the decisions in the current and proposed land use plans. Any proposed actions that would change the scope of resource uses, terms and conditions, and decisions of these plans may require an amendment of an affected plan.
To provide the public with an opportunity to review the proposal and associated information, as well as any proposed plan amendments, the BLM will host meetings before November 13, 2017. The BLM will notify the public of meetings and any other opportunities for the public to be involved in the process for this proposal at least 15 days prior to the event. Meeting dates, locations and times will be announced by a news release to the media, individual emailings, and postings on the project Web site.
The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the EIS.
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 may 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.
40 CFR 1501.7, 43 CFR 1610.2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The RAC will hold a public meeting on Thursday, October 12 and a field trip on Friday, October 13, to the Porter Springs Recreation Area within the BLM Winnemucca District. The meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. However, the meeting could end earlier if discussions and presentations conclude before 4:30 p.m. On October 13, the field trip will begin at 7:30 a.m. and end at 4:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the BLM Winnemucca District Office, 5100 East Winnemucca Blvd., Winnemucca, NV and the field trip will depart from the BLM Winnemucca District Office. Comments may be submitted by email to
Lisa Ross by telephone at (775) 885-6107, or by email at
The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM Nevada State Director, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Nevada. Meeting agenda topics include updates on Wildfire, Burning Man, Wild Horses and Burros, Jordan Meadows Collaborative process, Mining, RAC subcommittee reports, and District manager's updates. Both the meeting and field trip are open to the public. However, the public is required to provide its own transportation for the field trip.
Individuals who plan to attend and need further information about the meeting or need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, may contact Lisa Ross at the phone number or email address above. A Public comment period will be available on October 12 from 8:10-8:30 a.m. and 4:30-5:00 p.m. during the meeting.
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 the BLM in your comment to withhold your personal-identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The Southeast Oregon RAC will hold a public meeting on Monday and Tuesday, October 16 and 17, 2017. The October 16 meeting will consist of a field trip to view the Beaty Butte Wild Horse Training Facility and a local mining claim, departing at 8 a.m. and returning at 5 p.m. The October 17 meeting will begin at 8 a.m. and end at 1 p.m. A public comment period will be available from 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. The final agenda will be posted online at
The Southeast Oregon RAC will meet at the BLM Lakeview Interagency Center, 1301 S. G St., Lakeview, OR 97630, for both the Monday, October 16, field trip and the RAC business meeting.
Larisa Bogardus, Public Affairs Officer, 1301 South G Street, Lakeview, Oregon 97630; 541-947-6237;
The 15-member Southeast Oregon RAC was chartered and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The members represent commodity, conservation, and general interests. They provide advice to BLM and Forest Service resource managers regarding management plans and proposed resource actions on public land in southeast Oregon. All meetings are open to the public in their entirety. Information to be distributed to the the Southeast Oregon RAC is requested prior to the start of each meeting.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, please be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of cancellation.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has canceled its withdrawal application and the withdrawal proposal relating to approximately 10 million acres of public and National Forest system lands located within Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. The BLM has determined that the lands are no longer needed in connection with the proposed withdrawal. The BLM has also terminated the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement evaluating this application and proposal.
This Notice is applicable on October 11, 2017.
Mark A. Mackiewicz, BLM, by telephone at 435-636-3616, mail to 125 South 600 West, Price, UT 84501-2833 or by email at
A Notice of Proposed Withdrawal was published in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
On March 31, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada held that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, (NEPA) by failing to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the designation of Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA) in the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment in Nevada. In order to comply with the court's order and to address issues raised by various interested parties, the BLM intends to consider the possibility of amending some, all or none of the BLM land use plans that were amended or revised in 2014 and 2015 regarding Greater Sage-Grouse conservation in the States of California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Montana (“2015 Sage-Grouse Plans”). By this Notice the BLM is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments on Greater Sage-Grouse land management issues that could warrant land use plan amendments.
This Notice initiates the public scoping process for RMP amendment(s) with associated NEPA document(s). Comments may be submitted in writing until November 27, 2017. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local news media, newspapers and the BLM Web site at:
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to amending land use plans regarding Greater Sage-Grouse conservation to the BLM Web site at:
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the addresses listed below in
Johanna Munson in the BLM-Idaho State Office at (208) 373-7834, email
On March 31, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada held that the BLM violated NEPA by failing to prepare a supplemental EIS for the designation of SFAs in the 2015 Greater Sage-Grouse Plan in Nevada. Similar claims were raised in other lawsuits that have not been decided. The BLM also recognizes that the 2015 Greater Sage-Grouse Plans blended elements from among the action alternatives analyzed through the NEPA process for those
The BLM coordinated with the Sage Grouse Task Force to develop the SO 3353 report and continues to identify issues that warrant clarification or reconsideration. This coordination effort is continuing and will help to inform the BLM's implementation of SO 3353 in each State, as will input from other stakeholders. This Notice and potential planning effort does not preclude the BLM from addressing issues and inconsistencies through other means, including policy, training, or plan maintenance, nor does it commit the BLM to amending some, all, or none of the Greater Sage-Grouse plans. In addition to comments on the issues and planning criteria, the BLM would like to receive input on whether the planning effort should occur through state-by-state amendment processes and decisions. In particular, the BLM looks forward to receiving the comments of the Governors of each state, and will strive to accommodate those comments to the extent practicable given prior collaborative efforts.
You may submit comments in writing to the BLM at any public scoping meeting, or you may submit them to the BLM using the method listed in the
The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement process under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The following is a list of BLM contacts and the BLM offices where documents may be examined:
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
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 BLM will evaluate identified issues to be addressed in the plan, and will place them into one of three categories:
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan amendment(s);
2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of the plan amendment(s).
The public is encouraged to help identify any issues, management questions, or concerns that should be addressed in the plan amendment(s). The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan amendment(s) in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified.
40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before September 16, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by October 26, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions
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.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
First Lewis County Clerk's Office, 6660 NY 26, Martinsburg, SG100001769
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
U.S. International Trade Commission
Notice
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 5, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Intellectual Ventures II LLC of Bellevue, Washington. A supplement was filed on September 15, 2017. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain thermoplastic-encapsulated electric motors, components thereof, and products and vehicles containing same by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,154,200 (“the '200 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,067,944 (“the '944 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952 (“the '952 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,683,509 (“the '509 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,928,348 (“the '348 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists and is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, as supplemented, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain thermoplastic-encapsulated electric motors, components thereof, and products and vehicles containing same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, and 4-7 of the '200 patent; claims 24-27 of the '348 patent; claims 1, 2, 14, and 15 of the '509 patent; claims 3, 9, and 11 of the '944 patent; and claims 10 and 12 of the '952 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists and/or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding Administrative Law Judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 3150 139th Avenue SE., Building 4, Bellevue, WA 98005.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
On October 2, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in the lawsuit entitled
AAI Corporation; City of Baltimore, Maryland; CSX Realty Development, LLC; CSX Transportation, Inc.; Industrial Enterprises, Inc.; Pulaski & 68th Street, LLC; Browning-Ferris, Inc.; Acme Markets Inc.; Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.; AK Steel Corporation; Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.; Alcolac Inc., now known as Solvay USA Inc.; Baltimore Galvanizing Co., Inc.; Baltimore Gas & Electric Company; Beazer East, Inc.; Brunswick Corporation; Chevron Environmental Management Company; Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.; Exxon Mobil Corporation; Honeywell International Inc.; International Paper Company; The Johns Hopkins Hospital; The Johns Hopkins Health System
Several entities, including settling agencies of the United States and the State of Maryland, are resolving their alleged liability in the Consent Decree through payments to a trust account created by the group of companies that will perform the cleanup.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $90.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $17.25.
The Members of the National Council on Disability (NCD) will hold a quarterly meeting on Thursday, October 26, from 9:00 a.m.—4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, in Louisville, KY.
This meeting will occur in Louisville, KY at the Aloft Louisville Downtown hotel, in the rooms called “Tactic 1 & 4” on the first floor, 102 W Main Street, Louisville, KY 40202. Interested parties may join the meeting in person at the meeting location or may join by phone in a listening-only capacity (other than the period allotted for public comment noted below) using the following call-in information: Teleconference number: 1-888-203-7337; Conference ID: 9520004; Conference Title: NCD Meeting; Host Name: Clyde Terry.
The Council will receive agency updates on policy projects, finance, governance, and other business. The Council will release its annual 2017 Progress Report and receive a respondent panel presentation on the report. It will also screen a documentary film entitled “Rooted in Rights.” The Council will vote on final drafts of policy reports on guardianship and on pre-employment transition services under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. The Council will discuss project proposals for NCD's policy work in 2018 and 2019 before ending the meeting in a period of public comment.
The times provided below are approximations for when each agenda item is anticipated to be discussed (all times Eastern):
To better facilitate NCD's public comment, any individual interested in providing public comment is asked to register his or her intent to provide comment in advance by sending an email to
Anne Sommers, NCD, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (V), 202-272-2074 (TTY).
A CART streamtext link has been arranged for this meeting. The web link to access CART on Thursday, October 26, 2017 is:
Those who plan to attend the meeting in-person and require accommodations should notify NCD as soon as possible to allow time to make arrangements. To help reduce exposure to fragrances for those with multiple chemical sensitivities, NCD requests that all those attending the meeting in person refrain from wearing scented personal care products such as perfumes, hairsprays, and deodorants.
National Labor Relations Board.
Notice; correction.
5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
The National Labor Relations Board published a document in the
Gary Shinners, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE., Washington, DC 20570, (202) 273-3737 (this is not a toll-free number), 1-866-315-6572 (TTY/TDD).
In the
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
November 30, 2017; 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
The ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400 will hold a meeting October 17, 2017, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review the APR1400 design control document review, Chapter 8, “Electric Power,” and Chapter 10, “Steam and Power Conversion System.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Company 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), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301-415-7111 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.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the OPM Performance Review Board.
Carmen Garcia, Employee Services—OPM Human Resources, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-1048.
Section 4314(c) (1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review boards. The board reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and considers recommendations to the appointing authority regarding the performance of the senior executive.
The following have been designated as members of the Performance Review Board of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .01 to Rule 1009 to modify the criteria for listing an option on an underlying covered security.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Commentary .01 to Rule 1009 to modify the criteria for listing options on an underlying security as defined in Section 18(b)(1)(A) of the Securities Act of 1933 (hereinafter “covered security” or “covered securities”). In particular, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 1009, Commentary .01(4)(i) to permit the listing of an option on an underlying covered security that has a market price of at least $3.00 per share for the previous three consecutive business days preceding the date on which the Exchange submits a certificate to the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) for listing and trading. The Exchange does not intend to amend any other criteria for listing options on an underlying security in Rule 1009 and accompanying Commentary.
Currently the underlying covered security must have a closing market price of $3.00 per share for the previous five consecutive business days preceding the date on which the Exchange submits a listing certificate to OCC. In the proposed amendment, the market price will still be measured by the closing price reported in the primary market in which the underlying covered security is traded, but the measurement will be the price over the prior three consecutive business day period preceding the submission of the listing certificate to OCC, instead of the prior five business day period.
The Exchange acknowledges that the Options Listing Procedures Plan
At the time the Exchange adopted the “look back” period of five consecutive business days, it determined that the five-day period was sufficient to protect against attempts to manipulate the market price of the underlying security and would provide a reliable test for stability.
Furthermore, The NASDAQ Stock Market (“Nasdaq”), the Exchange's affiliated listing market, had no cases within the past five years where an IPO-related issue for which it had pricing information qualified for the $3.00 price requirement during the first three days of trading and did not qualify for the $3.00 price requirement during the first five days.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed look back period can be implemented in connection with the other initial listing criteria for underlying covered securities. In particular, the Exchange recognizes that it may be difficult to verify the number of shareholders in the days immediately following an IPO due to the fact that stock trades generally clear within two business days (T+2) of their trade date and therefore the shareholder count will generally not be known until T+2.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that it can verify the shareholder count with various brokerage firms that have a large retail customer clientele. Such firms can confirm the number of individual customers who have a position in the new issue. The earliest that these firms can provide confirmation is usually the day after the first day of trading (T+1) on an unsettled basis, while others can confirm on the third day of trading (T+2). The Exchange has confirmed with some of these brokerage firms who provide shareholder numbers to the Exchange that they are able to provide these numbers within T+2 after an IPO. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that basing the proposed three business day look back period on the T+2 settlement cycle would allow for sufficient verification of the number of shareholders.
The proposed rule change will apply to all covered securities that meet the criteria of Rule 1009. Pursuant to Rule 1009, the Exchange's Board of Directors (the “Board”) establishes guidelines to be considered by the Exchange in evaluating the potential underlying securities for Exchange option transactions.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its listing standards for covered securities would allow the Exchange to more quickly list options on a qualifying covered security that has met the $3.00 eligibility price without sacrificing investor protection. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its existing trading surveillances provide a sufficient measure of protection against potential price manipulation within the proposed three consecutive business day timeframe. The Exchange also believes that the proposed three consecutive business day timeframe would continue to be a reliable test for price stability in light of its findings that none of the IPO-related issues on Nasdaq within the past five years that qualified for the $3.00 per share price standard during the first three trading days fell below the $3.00 threshold during the fourth or fifth trading day. Furthermore, the established guidelines to be considered by the Exchange in evaluating the potential underlying securities for Exchange option transactions,
In addition, the Exchange believes that basing the proposed timeframe on the T+2 settlement cycle adequately addresses the potential difficulties in confirming the number of shareholders of the underlying covered security. Having some of the largest brokerage firms that provide these shareholder counts to the Exchange confirm that they are able to provide these numbers within T+2 further demonstrates that the 2,000 shareholder requirement can be sufficiently verified within the proposed timeframe. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments will remove and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing an avenue for investors to swiftly hedge their investment in the stock in a shorter amount of time than what is currently in place.
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 rule change reduces the number of days to list options on an underlying security, and is intended to bring new options listings to the marketplace quicker.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send 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.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15c2-7 places disclosure requirements on broker-dealers who have correspondent relationships, or agreements identified in the rule, with other broker-dealers. Whenever any such broker-dealer enters a quotation for a security through an inter-dealer quotation system, Rule 15c2-7 requires the broker-dealer to disclose these relationships and agreements in the manner required by the rule. The inter-dealer quotation system must also be able to make these disclosures public in association with the quotation the broker-dealer is making.
When rule 15c2-7 was adopted in 1964, the information it requires was necessary for execution of the Commission's mandate under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prevent fraudulent, manipulative and deceptive acts by broker-dealers. In the absence of the information collection required under Rule 15c2-7, investors and broker-dealers would have been unable to accurately determine the market depth of, and demand for, securities in an inter-dealer quotation system.
There are approximately 3,939 broker-dealers registered with the Commission. Any of these broker-dealers could be potential respondents for Rule 15c2-7, so the Commission is using that figure to represent the number of respondents. Rule 15c2-7 applies only to quotations entered into an inter-dealer quotation system, such as the OTC Bulletin Board (“OTCBB”), or OTC Link (formerly, “Pink Sheets”), operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. (“OTC Link”). According to representatives of both OTC Link and the OTCBB, neither entity has recently received, or anticipates receiving any Rule 15c2-7 notices. However, because such notices could be made, the Commission estimates that one filing is made annually pursuant to Rule 15c2-7.
Based on prior industry reports, the Commission estimates that the average time required to enter a disclosure pursuant to the rule is .75 minutes, or 45 seconds. The Commission sees no reason to change this estimate. We estimate that impacted respondents spend a total of .0125 hours per year to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-7 (1 notice (×) 45 seconds/notice).
Written comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
On August 18, 2017, Banque Central de Compensation, which conducts business under the name LCH SA (“LCH SA”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act provides that within 45 days of the publication of the notice of the filing or a proposed rule change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. As noted above, LCH SA proposed to revise its CDS Clearing Rule Book, CDS Clearing Supplement, CDS Clearing Procedures, and CDS Dispute Resolution Protocol in order to permit it to clear options on index credit default swaps. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider LCH SA's proposed rule change and the associated risks.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, extends the period by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-LCH SA-2017-006) to no later than November 29, 2017.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”)
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the
Applicants requests an order to permit certain registered open-end management investment companies or series thereof to invest in a private investment vehicle established by their investment advisers for the purpose of investing in China A Shares and certain other Chinese securities.
OppenheimerFunds, Inc. (“OFI”), OFI Global Asset Management, Inc. (“OFI Global”), and OFI Global Institutional, Inc. (“OFI Global Institutional,” and together with OFI and OFI Global, the “Initial Advisers”); OFI Global China Fund, LLC (the “OFI Global China Fund”); and Oppenheimer Developing Markets Fund, Oppenheimer Global Fund, Oppenheimer Global Opportunities Fund, Oppenheimer Global Value Fund, Oppenheimer International Growth Fund, Oppenheimer International Small-Mid Company Fund and Oppenheimer International Equity Fund (together, the “Trusts”).
The application was filed on December 12, 2013, and amended on June 6, 2014, November 21, 2014, May 1, 2015, October 16, 2015, April 7, 2016, August 9, 2016, May 12, 2017, August 29, 2017, and September 26, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 30, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: 225 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10281.
Kieran G. Brown, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6773, or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Each Trust is a Delaware statutory trust and is registered under Act as an open-end management investment company. One Trust, the Oppenheimer Developing Markets Fund (the “Initial Fund”), currently invests in the OFI Global China Fund, LLC (the “OFI Global China Fund”), which relies on the exemptions from registration under the Act provided by section 3(c)(1) and/or 3(c)(7) of the Act.
2. Each Adviser is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), and OFI Global and OFI Global Institutional are each a wholly-owned subsidiary of OFI. OFI Global serves as investment adviser to the Initial Fund pursuant to an investment advisory agreement between OFI Global and the Initial Fund (the “Advisory Agreement”). OFI serves as sub-adviser to the Initial Fund pursuant to a subadvisory agreement between OFI Global and OFI. As the Initial Fund's investment adviser and sub-adviser, OFI Global and OFI are responsible for making investment decisions for the Initial Fund and for administering the business and affairs of the Initial Fund. OFI Global is entitled, under the terms of the Advisory Agreement, to receive management fees from the Initial Fund at a specified rate. OFI Global also serves as the investment adviser to the other Trusts and their series and has entered into subadvisory agreements with OFI whereby OFI also provides investment advisory services to the other Trusts and their series. As investment adviser and sub-adviser, OFI Global and OFI's activities are subject to the oversight of the Boards of Trustees (the “Board” or “Boards,” as applicable) of the Trusts, at least a majority of whose members are not considered “interested persons” of the Trusts (as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act) (the “Independent Trustees”).
3. OFI and the other Advisers also manage or may manage collective investment trusts, private pooled investment vehicles and investment companies registered in other jurisdictions (together, “Other Vehicles”), as well as separately managed accounts (together with the Other Vehicles, “Other Accounts”).
4. The Funds desire to purchase and redeem limited liability company interests (“Interests”) of separately identified series of the OFI Global China Fund (each separate series of the OFI Global China Fund, an “OFI Global China Fund Series”). The OFI Global China Fund Series invests in class A Shares listed on People's Republic of China (“PRC”) stock exchanges, rights to invest in such class A Shares, corporate or government bonds listed on PRC stock exchanges or traded in the over-the-counter markets of the PRC and warrants listed on PRC stock exchanges (together, “Chinese Securities”).
5. Applicants assert that, for a variety of reasons, it is not practical or economical for the Funds to invest a significant amount of assets directly in Chinese Securities. Applicants state that, until 2002, the Chinese government restricted investment in China A Shares and other Chinese Securities to domestic (
6. Applicants state that the OFI Global China Fund would allow the Funds, and Other Accounts, to gain dedicated exposure to Chinese Securities and provide numerous additional investment opportunities for the Funds that are consistent with their investment objectives and policies. Applicants state that each OFI Global China Fund Series will invest only in Chinese securities, cash and cash equivalents.
7. The OFI Global China Fund is organized as a Delaware limited liability company. OFI serves as, and in the future an OFI Affiliate may serve as, the managing member of the OFI Global China Fund. The OFI Global China Fund does not have a board of directors or trustees. A Fund or Other Account may invest in some or all of the different OFI Global China Fund Series.
8. OFI will not charge advisory fees to OFI Global China Fund Series used by the Funds. OFI Global and the other Advisers will, however, be entitled to receive applicable advisory fees from the Funds or Other Accounts. Expenses of the OFI Global China Fund Series will be charged to the OFI Global China Fund Series as a whole and accrue on a daily basis.
9. A Fund's decision to invest in an OFI Global China Fund Series will be made by a Fund's portfolio manager(s). Because the PRC restricts repatriation of the proceeds from sales of Chinese Securities, each Fund will treat its entire investment in the OFI Global China Fund as an investment that is not liquid for purposes of any applicable rules or guidance of the Commission or its staff regarding the management of liquidity and will otherwise be subject to the limits described in condition 4. Applicants state that access by the Funds and Other Accounts to the quota (
10. Applicants state that OFI contemplates making a nominal (
1. Section 17(a) generally provides, in part, that it is unlawful for any affiliated person of a registered investment company (“first-tier affiliate”), or any affiliated person of such person (“second tier affiliate”), acting as principal, to sell or purchase any security or other property to or from such investment company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines an “affiliated person” of another person to include (a) any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person; (b) any person 5% or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or held with the power to vote by the other person; and (c) any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the other person. Section 2(a)(9) defines “control” to mean “the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company, unless such power is solely the result of an official position with such company.”
2. Applicants state that the Funds and the OFI Global China Fund are expected to be affiliated persons under section 2(a)(3) of the Act, because it is expected that one or more Funds and Other Vehicles will own at least 5%, and potentially, more than 25% of the Interests of the OFI Global China Fund or an OFI Global China Fund Series. While Interests of the OFI Global China Fund (and OFI Global China Fund Series) will be non-voting interests, a Fund or Other Vehicle could have power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of the OFI Global China Fund or Series and be deemed an affiliated person of the OFI Global China Fund or OFI Global China Fund Series under section 2(a)(3)(C). In addition, OFI Global is the investment adviser to the Initial Fund, OFI serves as the initial sub-adviser to the Initial Fund, and the Advisers will be investment advisers and sub-advisers to any Future Funds. An Adviser or OFI Affiliate will also be the managing member of the OFI Global China Fund. As a result, the OFI Global China Fund or OFI Global China Fund Series may be deemed to be under the Adviser's control under section 2(a)(3)(C), such that the OFI Global China Fund may be deemed an affiliated person of an affiliated person of the Funds.
3. If a Fund and the OFI Global China Fund are deemed affiliates of each other, or even second-tier affiliates, the sale of Interests of the OFI Global China Fund to the Fund, and the redemption of such Interests by the Fund, would be prohibited under section 17(a) of the Act.
4. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if the terms of the proposed transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved and with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any person or transactions from any provisions 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.
5. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangement satisfies the standards for relief under sections 17(b) and 6(c) of the Act. For the reasons discussed below, Applicants submit that the terms of the arrangement, including the consideration to be paid, are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and that the proposed transactions are consistent with the policy of each registered investment company concerned and with the general purposes of the Act. Applicants further submit that the Funds' participation in the OFI Global China Fund Series will be necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and provisions of the Act.
6. Applicants state that each Fund and Other Account will be treated identically as a holder of Interest in the OFI Global China Fund Series, and each Fund and Other Account will purchase and sell Interests of an OFI Global China Fund Series on the same terms and on the same basis as each other Fund and Other Account that invests in that OFI Global China Fund Series. Applicants note that no Adviser or OFI Affiliate will receive a fee for advising any OFI Global China Fund Series used by a Fund. The Funds, as holders of Interests of the OFI Global China Fund, will not be subject to any sales load, redemption fee, distribution fee or service fee, except that the OFI Global China Fund will have the discretion to impose a redemption fee in accordance with applicable law or regulation for the purpose of offsetting brokerage, tax or other costs. If a redemption fee is charged, it will be charged only to the extent that such a fee may be charged by an open-end fund registered under the Act. Each series of the OFI Global China Fund will be audited. Moreover, administrative fees and transfer agent fees will be paid by the OFI Global China Fund Series used by the Funds to an Adviser or OFI Affiliate only upon the determination by each Fund's Board, including a majority of Independent Trustees, that the fees are (i) for services in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services rendered to the Funds directly and (ii) fair and reasonable in light of the usual and customary charges imposed by others for services of the same nature and quality. Applicants argue that the fees payable to the OFI Global China Fund's service providers will be for distinct services, and the costs of such fees will be outweighed by opportunity to invest in Chinese Securities.
7. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act generally prohibit joint transactions involving registered investment companies and their affiliates unless the Commission has approved the transaction. In considering whether to approve a joint transaction under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the proposed transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation of the investment companies is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of the other participants.
8. Applicants state that the Funds (by purchasing Interests of the OFI Global China Fund), OFI (by managing the portfolio securities of the OFI Global China Fund and the Funds at the same time that the Funds are invested in Interests of the OFI Global China Fund and/or by providing a nominal tax matters partner investment in the OFI Global China Fund), and the OFI Global China Fund (by selling its Interests to, and redeeming its Interests from, the Funds), could be deemed to be
9. Applicants request an order pursuant to section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit the proposed transactions with the OFI Global China Fund. Applicants submit that the investment by the Funds in the OFI Global China Fund on the basis proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and that each Fund will invest in Interests of the OFI Global China Fund on the same basis as any other shareholder (
10. Applicants do not believe that OFI's nominal investment as tax matters partner in the OFI Global China Fund poses any potential conflict of interest not addressed by the conditions contained in the application. OFI will acquire Interests having rights, duties and obligations that are identical in all respects to Interests purchased by other investors in the OFI Global China Fund.
11. Applicants propose that the Funds be permitted to continue to engage in certain purchase and sale cross transactions in securities (“Cross Transactions”) between a Fund seeking to implement a portfolio strategy and an Other Vehicle seeking to raise or invest cash. The Funds currently rely on rule 17a-7 to engage in such Cross Transactions; however, if a Fund and an Other Vehicle were deemed to be second-tier affiliates of each other by virtue of their ownership or control affiliations with the OFI Global China Fund or an OFI Global China Fund Series, the Funds may not be entitled to rely on rule 17a-7 because they would no longer be affiliated solely for the reasons permitted by the rule.
12. Applicants assert that the potential affiliations created by the OFI Global China Fund Series structure do not affect the other protections provided by the rule, including the integrity of the pricing mechanism employed, and oversight by each Fund's Board. Applicants represent that the Funds and Other Vehicles will comply with the requirements set forth in rule 17a-(7)(a) through (g). Applicants thus believe that Cross Transactions will be reasonable and fair, and will not involve overreaching, and will be consistent with the purposes of the Act and the investment policy of each Fund.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. The Funds' investments in Interests of the OFI Global China Fund will be undertaken only in accordance with the Funds' stated investment restrictions and will be consistent with their stated investment policies.
2. The Advisers and their affiliated persons will receive no advisory fee from the OFI Global China Fund in connection with the Funds' investment in the OFI Global China Fund. The Advisers and their affiliated persons will receive no commissions, fees, or other compensation (except for transfer agent fees that are paid in accordance with condition 3 as described in the application) from a Fund or the OFI Global China Fund in connection with the purchase or redemption by the Funds of Interests in the OFI Global China Fund. Interests of the OFI Global China Fund will not be subject to a sales load, redemption fee, distribution fee or service fee, except that the OFI Global China Fund will have the discretion to impose a redemption fee in accordance with applicable law or regulation for the purpose of offsetting brokerage, tax or other costs. If a redemption fee is charged, it will be charged only to the extent that such a fee may be charged by an open-end fund registered under the Act.
3. Administrative fees and transfer agent fees will be paid by the OFI Global China Fund Series used by the Funds to an Adviser, or OFI Affiliate, only upon a determination by each Fund's Board, including a majority of its Independent Trustees, that the fees are (i) for services in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services rendered to the Funds directly and (ii) fair and reasonable in light of the usual and customary charges imposed by others for services of the same nature and quality. If such determination is not made by a Fund's Board, the Fund's Adviser will reimburse to that Fund the amount of any administrative fee and transfer agent fee borne by that Fund as an investor in the OFI Global China Fund.
4. Each Fund will treat its entire investment in the OFI Global China Fund as an investment that is not liquid for purposes of any applicable rules or guidance of the Commission or its staff regarding the management of liquidity. For example, under current guidelines, each Fund must limit its aggregate holdings of illiquid assets, which for purposes of the requested relief include any investments in the OFI Global China Fund, to 15% of its net assets. In addition, each Fund will, at all times, limit its holdings in the OFI Global China Fund to no more than 15% of its net assets.
5. Each Fund's Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will determine initially and no less frequently than annually that the Fund's investment in the OFI Global China Fund is, and continues to be, in the best interests of the Fund and the Fund's shareholders. As part of this determination, the Fund's Board will consider the custody arrangements for the OFI Global China Fund's foreign securities (under rule 17f-5) and the bonding arrangements in place for certain of the OFI Global China Fund's officers and employees (under rule 17g-1).
6. The Advisers will make the accounts, books and other records of the OFI Global China Fund available for inspection by the Commission staff and, if requested, will furnish copies of those records to the Commission staff.
7. The OFI Global China Fund will comply with the following sections of the Act as if the OFI Global China Fund were an open-end management investment company registered under the Act, except as noted: Section 9; section 12; section 13 (the Interests issued by OFI Global China Fund will be regarded as voting securities under section 2(a) (42) of the Act for purposes of applying this condition and the offering memorandum utilized by the OFI Global China Fund to offer and sell Interests will be regarded as a registration statement for purposes of applying this condition); section 17(a) (except as described in the application); section 17(d) (except as described in the application); section 17(e); section 17(f); section 17(h), section 18 (the Interests issued by the OFI Global China Fund will be regarded as voting securities under section 2(a)(42) of the Act for purposes of applying this condition); section 21; section 36; and sections 37-53. In addition, the OFI Global China Fund will comply with the rules under section 17(f)
OFI will adopt procedures designed to ensure that the OFI Global China Fund complies with the aforementioned sections of the Act and rules under the Act. OFI will periodically review and periodically update as appropriate such procedures and will maintain books and records describing such procedures, and maintain the records required by rules 31a-1(b)(1), 31a-1(b)(2)(ii) and 31a-1(b)(9) under the Act. All books and records required to be made pursuant to this condition will be maintained and preserved for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any transaction occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
For purpose of implementing condition 7, any action that the above-referenced statutory and regulatory provisions require to be taken by the directors, officers and/or employees of a registered investment company will be performed by OFI (or its successor)
8. To engage in Cross Transactions, the Funds will comply with rule 17a-7 under the Act in all respects other than the requirement that the parties to the transaction be affiliated persons (or affiliated persons of affiliated persons) of each other solely by reason of having a common investment adviser or investment advisers which are affiliated persons of each other, common officers, and/or common directors, solely because a Fund and Other Vehicle might become affiliated persons within the meaning of section 2(a)(3)(A), (B) or (C) of the Act because of their investments in the OFI Global China Fund.
9. An OFI Global China Fund Series in which a Fund invests will not borrow or engage in leverage.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) actively-managed series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (“Acquiring Funds”) to acquire shares of the Funds; and (f) certain Funds (“Feeder Funds”) to create and redeem Creation Units in-kind in a master-feeder structure.
USCF Fund Advisors, LLC (the “Initial Adviser”), a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, USCF ETF Trust (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, and ALPS Distributors, Inc. (“Distributor”), a Colorado Corporation and broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).
The application was filed on July 31, 2014 and amended on November 11, 2014, February 13, 2015, August 24, 2016, February 23, 2017 and July 7, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 30, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Applicants, James M. Cain and Cynthia R. Beyea, Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, 700 Sixth Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001.
Jeremy Heckerling, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-7259, or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as actively-managed exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will consist of a portfolio of securities and other assets and investment positions (“Portfolio Positions”). Each Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Positions that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the day.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units only and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the application.
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
6. With respect to Funds that hold non-U.S. Portfolio Positions and that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Acquiring Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Acquiring Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are affiliated persons, or second-tier affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those Portfolio 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 an Acquiring Fund, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Acquiring Fund.
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.
Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 12, 2017.
Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 9:00 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
On September 12, 2017, the Commission issued notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10412), indicating that the meeting is open to the public (except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch), and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of the Commission may attend the meeting.
The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a discussion regarding blockchain and other distributed ledger technology and implications for securities markets; an overview of law school clinic advocacy efforts on behalf of retail investors; a discussion regarding electronic delivery of information to retail investors (which may include a recommendation of the Investor as Purchaser Subcommittee); subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic administrative work session during lunch.
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.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The risk disclosure documents are for the benefit of the customers, to assure that they are aware of the risks of trading in “penny stocks” before they enter into a transaction. The risk disclosure documents are maintained by the broker-dealers and may be reviewed during the course of an examination by the Commission.
There are approximately 198 broker-dealers that could potentially be subject to current Rule 15g-2. The Commission estimates that approximately 5% of registered broker-dealers are engaged in penny stock transactions, and thereby subject to the Rule (5% × approximately 3,969 registered broker-dealers = 198 broker-dealers). The Commission estimates that each one of these firms processes an average of three new customers for penny stocks per week. Thus, each respondent processes approximately 156 penny stock disclosure documents per year. If communications in tangible form alone are used to satisfy the requirements of Rule 15g-2, then the copying and mailing of the penny stock disclosure document takes no more than two minutes. Thus, the total associated burden is approximately 2 minutes per response, or an aggregate total of 312 minutes per respondent. Since there are 198 respondents, the current annual burden is 61,776 minutes (312 minutes per each of the 198 respondents) or 1,030 hours for this third party disclosure burden. In addition, broker-dealers incur a recordkeeping burden of approximately two minutes per response when filing the completed penny stock disclosure documents as required pursuant to the Rule 15(g)(2)(c), which requires a broker-dealer to preserve a copy of the written acknowledgement pursuant to Rule 17a-4(b) of the Exchange Act. Since there are approximately 156 responses for each respondent, the respondents incur an aggregate recordkeeping burden of 61,776 minutes (198 respondents × 156 responses for each × 2 minutes per response) or 1,030 hours, under Rule 15g-2. Accordingly, the current aggregate annual hour burden associated with Rule 15g-2 (assuming that all respondents provide tangible copies of the required documents) is approximately 2,060 hours (1,030 third party disclosure hours + 1,030 recordkeeping hours).
The burden hours associated with Rule 15g-2 may be slightly reduced when the penny stock disclosure document required under the rule is provided through electronic means such as email from the broker-dealer (
In addition, if the penny stock customer requests a paper copy of the information on the Commission's Web
We have no way of knowing how many broker-dealers and customers will choose to communicate electronically. Assuming that 50 percent of respondents continue to provide documents and obtain signatures in tangible form and 50 percent choose to communicate electronically to satisfy the requirements of Rule 15g-2, the total aggregate burden hours would be 2,060 ((aggregate burden hours for sending disclosure documents and obtaining signed customer acknowledgments in tangible form × 0.50 of the respondents = 1,030 hours) + (aggregate burden hours for electronically signed and transmitted documents × 0.50 of the respondents = 773 hours) + (257 burden hours for those customers making requests for a copy of the information on the Commission's Web site)).
The Commission does not maintain the risk disclosure document. Instead, it must be retained by the broker-dealer for at least three years following the date on which the risk disclosure document was provided to the customer, the first two years in an accessible place. The collection of information required by the rule is mandatory. The risk disclosure document is otherwise governed by the internal policies of the broker-dealer regarding confidentiality, etc.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site:
2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 11, 2017.
Closed Commission Hearing Room.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to list and trade shares of the CBOE S&P 500 ® Dividend Aristocrats® Target Income Index ETF under the ETF Series Solutions Trust (the “Trust”), under Rule 14.11(c)(3) (“Index Fund Shares”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of CBOE S&P 500® Dividend Aristocrats® Target Income Index ETF (the “Fund”) under Rule 14.11(c)(3), which governs the listing and trading of Index Fund Shares on the Exchange. The Fund will be an index-based exchange traded fund (“ETF”). The Fund will track the CBOE S&P 500® Dividend Aristocrats® Target Income Index (the “Index”).
The Shares will be offered by the Trust, which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on February 9, 2012. The Trust is registered with the Commission as an open-end investment company and plans to file a registration statement on behalf of the Fund on Form N-1A with the Commission.
The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the Index does not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i), applicable to the listing of Index Fund Shares based upon an index of “U.S. Component Stocks.”
The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under Rule 14.11(c), except that the Index will not meet the requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i)(a)-(e) in that the Index will be composed of U.S. Component Stocks and options based on U.S. Component Stocks (
The Fund uses a “passive management” (or indexing) approach to track the total return performance, before fees and expenses, of the CBOE S&P 500® Dividend Aristocrats® Target Income Index (the “Index” for purposes of this section). The Index is a rules-based buy-write index created by the Index Provider, an affiliate of the Fund's investment adviser, and designed with the primary goal of generating an annualized level of income that is approximately 3.5% over the annual dividend yield of the S&P 500 Index and a secondary goal of generating price returns that are proportional to the price returns of the S&P 500 Index.
The Index is composed of two parts: (1) An equal-weighted portfolio of the stocks contained in the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index (the “Aristocrat Stocks”) that have options that trade on a national securities exchange and (2) a rolling series of short call options on each of the Aristocrat Stocks (the “Covered Calls”). The S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index generally includes companies in the S&P 500 Index that have increased dividend payments each year for at least 25 consecutive years and meet certain market capitalization and liquidity requirements.
The Covered Calls are written (sold)
The equity component of the Index is rebalanced (
The Fund attempts to invest all, or substantially all, of its assets in the component securities that make up the Index. Under Normal Market Conditions,
The Exchange notes that, while the Fund will be a series of Index Fund Shares listed on the Exchange under Rule 14.11(c), the Fund will meet the generic listing standards applicable to Managed Fund Shares under Rule 14.11(i), which would allow a series of Managed Fund Shares with the exact same holdings as the Fund to list on the Exchange without requiring the submission and SEC approval of a rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. While Index Fund Shares track the value of an index and Managed Fund Shares are based on an actively managed portfolio and are not generally designed to track an underlying reference asset, the Exchange believes that there are no substantive issues that are unique to Index Fund Shares that were not considered in the Commission's approval of the generic listing rules for Managed Fund Shares.
In addition, the Exchange represents that, except as described above, the Fund will meet each of the initial and continued listing criteria in BZX Rule 14.11(c) with the exception Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i), applicable to the listing of Index Fund Shares based upon an index of “U.S. Component Stocks.” The Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of the Shares of the Fund. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares of the Fund will comply with all other requirements applicable to Index Fund Shares including, but not limited to, requirements relating to the dissemination of key information such as the Disclosed Portfolio, Net Asset Value, and the Intraday Indicative Value, rules governing the trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts, surveillance, and the information circular, as set forth in Exchange rules applicable to Index Fund Shares and the orders approving such rules. Moreover, all of the options contracts held by the Fund will trade on markets that are a member of Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) or affiliated with a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that the Shares of the Fund will meet each of the initial and continued listing criteria in BZX Rule 14.11(c) with the exception Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i), applicable to the listing of Index Fund Shares based upon an index of “U.S. Component Stocks.” Specifically, Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i) sets forth the requirements to be met by components of an index or portfolio of U.S. Component Stocks. Because the Index contains options, rather than exclusively containing “U.S. Component Stocks” as defined in Rule 14.11(c)(1)(D), the Index does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i),
The Exchange also represents that, except as described above, the Fund will satisfy, on an initial and continued listing basis, all of the generic listing standards under BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i) and all other applicable requirements for Index Fund Shares under Rule 14.11(c). The Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of the Shares of the Fund. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares of the Fund will comply with all other requirements applicable to Index Fund Shares including, but not limited to, requirements relating to the dissemination of key information such as the Disclosed Portfolio, Net Asset Value, and the Intraday Indicative Value, rules governing the trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts, surveillance, and the information circular, as set forth in Exchange rules applicable to Index Fund Shares and the orders approving such rules. Moreover, all of the options contracts held by the Fund will trade on markets that are a member of ISG or affiliated with a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of Index Fund Shares that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to modify the listing requirements related to Acquisition Companies.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In 2009 Nasdaq adopted a rule (IM-5101-2) to impose additional listing requirements on a company whose business plan is to complete an initial public offering and engage in a merger or acquisition with one or more unidentified companies within a specific period of time (“Acquisition Companies”).
The additional requirements currently applicable to an Acquisition Company require, in part, that 90% of the gross proceeds of the company's offering must be deposited into and retained in an escrow account through the date of a business combination; that the entity complete a significant business combination within 36 months of the effectiveness of the IPO registration statement; and that public shareholders who object to the combination have the right to convert their common stock into a pro rata share of the funds held in escrow.
Nasdaq has observed that Acquisition Companies often have difficulty demonstrating compliance with the shareholder requirement for initial and continued listing.
Given the unique nature of Acquisition Companies, however, the potential for distorted prices occurring as a result of there being few shareholders or illiquidity is less of a concern for their investors. During the period between its public offering and the consummation of a business combination, the value of an Acquisition Company is based primarily on the value of the funds it holds in trust, and the Acquisition Company's shareholders have the right to redeem their shares for a pro rata share of that trust in conjunction with the business combination. As a result, Acquisition Companies, generally, have historically traded close to the value in the trust, even when they have had few shareholders, which suggests that their lack of shareholders has not resulted in distorted prices and the associated concerns.
Nasdaq also reviewed trading activity following the announcement by Acquisition Companies of a pending business combination with an operating company and observed no increase in volatility in the vast majority of cases. In every instance where volatility did increase following the announcement of a pending business combination, the Acquisition Company had not been cited for non-compliance with the 300 shareholder requirement.
Nasdaq believes that this data analysis supports a conclusion that trading in shares of an Acquisition Company, generally, does not suffer when the company has fewer shareholders than the current Nasdaq requirement.
Nasdaq believes that an Exchange Traded Fund (“ETF”) is somewhat similar to an Acquisition Company in this regard in that an arbitrage mechanism keeps the ETF's price close to the value of its underlying securities, even when trading in the ETF's shares is relatively illiquid. The initial listing requirements for ETFs do not include a shareholder requirement and only 50 shareholders are required for continued listing after the ETF has been listed for one year.
For these reasons, Nasdaq proposes to reduce the shareholder requirement for the initial listing of an Acquisition Company on the Capital Market from 300 to 150 round-lot shareholders.
Nasdaq has also observed that it can be difficult for a company, once listed, to obtain evidence demonstrating the number of its shareholders because many accounts are held in street name and shareholders may object to being identified to the company. As a result, companies must seek information from broker-dealers and from third-parties that distribute information such as proxy materials for the broker-dealers. This process is time-consuming and particularly burdensome for Acquisition Companies because most operating expenses are typically borne by the Acquisition Company's sponsors due to the requirement that the gross proceeds of the initial public offering remain in the trust account until the closing of the business combination.
Nasdaq notes that Rule 3a51-1 under the Act
If an Acquisition Company no longer meets the applicable net tangible assets requirement following initial listing, its common stock could become subject to the penny stock rules.
In addition, if an Acquisition Company no longer meets the applicable net tangible assets requirement following initial listing, Nasdaq would initiate delisting proceedings under the Rule 5800 Series by sending a Staff Delisting Determination.
Last, Nasdaq notes that the existing rules require that following a business combination with an Acquisition Company, the resulting company must satisfy all initial listing requirements. The rule does not provide a timetable for the company to demonstrate that it satisfies those requirements, however. In order to assure that any company that does not satisfy the initial listing requirements following a business combination enters the delisting process promptly, Nasdaq proposes to codify that a company must demonstrate that it meets the initial listing requirements within 30 days following a business combination. If the company has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements for initial listing in that time, Nasdaq staff would issue a Delisting Determination, which the company could appeal to an independent Hearings Panel as described in the Nasdaq Rule 5800 Series.
Nasdaq also proposes to delete a duplicative paragraph from the rule text and separate certain provisions into new paragraphs to enhance the readability of the rule.
These proposed changes will be effective upon approval of this rule by the Commission. However, Nasdaq will permit Acquisition Companies, if any, that were listed on the Capital Market before this proposal was approved and that have less than $5 million net tangible assets to remain listed, provided that such a company must continue to comply with the 300 public holder requirement for continued listing.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed rule change will also continue to assure that any listed Acquisition Company satisfies an exclusion from the definition of a “penny stock” under the Act by imposing a new requirement that an Acquisition Company must maintain $5 million of net tangible assets. Further, following listing Nasdaq will monitor the company and publish on its Web site if the company no longer satisfies those additional requirements or any of the other exclusions from being a penny stock contained in Rule 3a51-1 under the Securities Act of 1933.
Thus, this change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by removing listing requirements that prohibit certain companies from listing or remaining listed without any concomitant investor protection benefits. In addition, the change would also limit the amount of time that an Acquisition Company could remain listed following a business combination if it has not demonstrated compliance with the initial listing requirements, thereby enhancing investor protection. Accordingly, Nasdaq believes that the proposal satisfies the Exchange Act requirements.
Finally, Nasdaq does not believe that this change affecting only Acquisition Companies should affect the designation in Rule 146(b) under the Securities Act
In 1996, Congress amended Section 18 of the Securities Act to exempt from state registration requirements securities listed, or authorized for listing, on the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), the American Stock Exchange LLC (now known as NYSE American LLC), or the National Market System of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“the Nasdaq Global Market”) (collectively, the “Named Markets”), or any national securities exchange designated by the Commission as having “substantially similar” listing standards to those of the Named Markets.
In 2007, the Commission amended Rule 146(b) to designate securities listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market as Covered Securities.
When the Commission expanded Rule 146(b) to include the Nasdaq Capital Market, it compared the listing requirements of the Named Markets to those of the Capital Market for common stock, secondary classes of common stock and preferred stocks, convertible debt, warrants, index warrants and units.
Nasdaq notes that it is not proposing to reduce the shareholder requirement for operating companies listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market. The proposed change affects only the separate listing requirements for Acquisition Companies, which were adopted because Nasdaq viewed Acquisition Companies as presenting different risks than operating companies and created listing requirements designed to address those risks. Similarly, and as described above, just as Nasdaq believes Acquisition Companies have unique risks, other facets of their structure and the requirements of Nasdaq's rules for Acquisition Companies minimize the need for a shareholder requirement. As described above, the Commission has previously concluded that categories of securities differing from common stock of operating companies can be Covered Securities, even though such securities are subject to lower listing requirements. Nasdaq believes that, here, the earlier decision to regulate Acquisition Companies listed on the Capital Market under the quantitative requirements of the Rule 5500 Series should not preclude the decision now to adopt a lower minimum shareholder requirement for Acquisition Companies, which are a unique category of securities, nor should it affect the designation of securities listed on the Capital Market as Covered Securities so long as the other investor protection requirements of the Act are satisfied. As described above, Nasdaq believes such investor protection requirements are satisfied. Moreover, preventing Nasdaq from making this change for the Capital Market would create the perverse, anti-competitive result that the Named Markets (including the Nasdaq Global Market) would be allowed to make this change, or any change, but that the markets identified in Rule 146(b) could never innovate and could only copy the changes made by the Named Markets [sic].
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. While the rule may permit more Acquisition Companies to list, or remain listed, on Nasdaq, other exchanges could adopt similar rules to compete for such listings.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) index-based series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds,
Whitford Asset Management LLC (the “Initial Adviser”), a Delaware limited liability company that is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, ETF Series Solutions (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, and Quasar Distributors, 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 August 25, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 30, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Whitford Asset Management LLC, 43 Leopard Road, Suite 201, Paoli, Pennsylvania 19301; ETF Series Solutions, 615 East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202; Quasar Distributors, LLC, 777 East Wisconsin Avenue, 6th Floor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.
Courtney S. Thornton, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6812, or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as index exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will hold investment positions selected to correspond generally 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. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the application.
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
6. With respect to Funds that 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,
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. 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend Section 13 of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws (“Section 13”) governing the review charges for communications filed with or submitted to FINRA's Advertising Regulation Department (the “Department”) to account for upcoming technological changes that will allow Web sites to be filed in native format.
Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
There shall be a review charge for each and every communication, whether in printed, video or other form, filed with or submitted to FINRA, except for items that are filed or submitted in response to a written request from FINRA's Advertising Regulation Department (“the Department”) issued pursuant to the spot check procedures set forth in FINRA rules, as follows: (1) For printed
Where a member requests expedited review of material submitted to the Department there shall be a review charge of $600.00 per item plus $50.00 for each
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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
In April 2014, FINRA launched a retrospective review of its communications with the public rules to assess their effectiveness and efficiency. In December 2014, FINRA published a report on the assessment phase of the review.
To this end, the report recommended a combination of rule proposals, guidance and administrative measures, including systems upgrades, to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the rules with no reduction in investor protection. Pursuant to these recommendations, efforts have been underway to upgrade FINRA's Advertising Regulation Electronic Files (“AREF”) System, a web-based application accessed through the FINRA Firm Gateway that enables member firms to electronically submit communications with the public for review by FINRA's Advertising Regulation Department (“Department”).
FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public) requires members to file with the Department specified retail communications either 10 business days prior to use or within 10 business days of first use, as applicable. For example, new members, for a period of one year beginning on the date their FINRA membership becomes effective, generally must file with the Department at least 10 business days prior to first use, any retail communication that is published or used in any electronic or other public media, including any generally accessible Web site.
Currently, Section 13 imposes a review charge for each communication filed with or submitted to FINRA (except for items that are filed or submitted in response to a written request from the Department issued pursuant to the spot check procedures set forth in Rules 2210(c)(6) and 2220(c)(3)). The rates charged are based on the number of pages for printed material or the length of video or audio media. In addition, there are surcharges for expedited review. The proposed rule change would establish charges for submission of Web sites and Web pages in native format, in anticipation of the upgraded AREF System capabilities. It would establish rates of $125, plus $10 for each Web page reviewed in excess of 10 pages. The charges for expedited reviews would be $600 per item plus $50 for each Web page reviewed in excess of 10 pages. For the purposes of the charging schedule, each distinct URL would be treated as a Web page. The proposed rates mirror the current rates for printed material, which would remain unchanged. Thus, the proposed rule change maintains parity in charging, irrespective of the form of filing or submission. FINRA notes that firms will not be obligated to file or submit Web site communications in native format. They may continue to convert those communications to a printed format and submit them at the unchanged printed page rate if they find that method more efficient or economical.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,
FINRA 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. The proposed rule change would not impose any additional reporting requirements or costs on firms. Members will not be obligated to submit communications in native format and therefore may choose to continue to file or submit communications as they do today, with the same attendant charges.
To the extent that the conversion of Web site or Web page communications from native format to another format were viewed as burdensome among market participants, those participants will have the option to submit such communications in native format, which would permit members to mitigate any direct or indirect costs associated with such conversion.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 18f-3 (17 CFR 270.18f-3) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The requirement that the fund prepare and directors approve a written rule 18f-3 plan is intended to ensure that the fund compiles information relevant to the fairness of the separate arrangement and expense allocation for each class, and that directors review and approve the information. Without a blueprint that highlights material differences among classes, directors might not perceive potential conflicts of interests when they determine whether the plan is in the best interests of each class and
Based on an analysis of fund filings, the Commission estimates that there are approximately 7,743 multiple class funds offered by 1,045 registrants. The Commission estimates that each of the 1,045 registrants will make an average of 0.5 responses annually to prepare and approve a written 18f-3 plan.
Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. The collection of information under rule 18f-3 is mandatory. The information provided under rule 18f-3 will not be kept confidential. 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.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
On August 1, 2017, Banque Central de Compensation, which conducts business under the name LCH SA (“LCH SA”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act provides that within 45 days of the publication of the notice of the filing or a proposed rule change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. As noted above, LCH SA proposed to amend its CDS Margin Framework and CDSClear Default Fund Methodology in order to permit it to clear options on index credit default swaps. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider LCH SA's proposed rule change and the risks associated therewith.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, extends the period by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-LCH SA-2017-007) to no later than November 19, 2017.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of Updated NAICS Codes for Use in the Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract Program.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is updating the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes authorized for use in the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Federal Contract Program (WOSB Program). The update is being made to reflect the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) NAICS revision for 2017, identified as NAICS 2017. NAICS 2017 created 21 new industries by reclassifying, combining, or splitting 29 NAICS 2012 industry codes. These changes would impact eight (8) of the 2012 NAICS codes designated for use under the WOSB Program.
The designations of industries contained in this notice apply to all solicitations issued on or after October 1, 2017.
Amy Kim, Office of Government Contracting, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416,
Under section 8(m) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 637(m), SBA is responsible for implementing and administering the WOSB Program, which went into effect on February 4, 2011. 75 FR 62258 (February 4, 2011). The WOSB Program authorizes Federal contracting officers to restrict competition for an acquisition to WOSBs, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) The acquisition is for a good or service assigned a NAICS code in which SBA has determined that WOSBs are substantially underrepresented; (2) There is a reasonable expectation that at least two WOSBs will submit offers; and (3) The award will be made at a fair and reasonable price. The WOSB Program also authorizes contracting officers to award a sole source contract to a WOSB if only one WOSB can perform the contract at a fair and reasonable price.
In addition, Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Businesses (EDWOSBs) can likewise receive set-asides and sole source awards similar to those described above in NAICS codes in which SBA has determined that WOSBs are underrepresented.
In order to identify the industries eligible for set-asides under the WOSB Program, the Small Business Act required the SBA Administrator to periodically conduct a study to identify those industries in which small business concerns owned and controlled by women are underrepresented in Federal contracting. 15 U.S.C. 637(m)(4).
Pursuant to that statutory requirement, SBA awarded a contract to the Kauffman-RAND Institute for Entrepreneurship Public Policy (RAND) to complete a study of the underrepresentation of WOSBs in Federal prime contracts by industry code. The RAND study was published in April 2007.
In 2014, Congress amended the Small Business Act to require SBA to submit a report to Congress reflecting the results of a new study by January 2, 2016, and then continue to conduct a new study every five years. Public Law 113-291 825(c) (Dec. 19, 2014). In response to this statutory mandate, SBA asked the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) of the U.S. Department of Commerce for assistance in conducting a new study of the WOSB Program. OCE looked at whether, holding constant various factors that might influence the award of a contract, the odds of winning Federal prime contracts by firms that were owned by women were greater or less than the odds of winning them by otherwise similar businesses.
As a result of the OCE study findings, SBA increased the number of 2012 NAICS codes authorized for use under the WOSB Program to 113 four-digit NAICS industry groups, effective March 3, 2016. 81 FR 11340 (March 3, 2016). Consequently, WOSBs have been able to compete for and receive contract awards in 92 four-digit NAICS industry groups or 365 six-digit NAICS codes. EDWOSBs have been able to compete for and receive contract awards in 21 designated four-digit NAICS industry groups or 80 six-digit NAICS codes, in addition to those authorized for WOSBs.
On August 8, 2016, OMB published its most recent update to the NAICS industry groups, NAICS 2017, “Notice of NAICS 2017 final decisions,” in the
In order to align the WOSB Program with the Notice of NAICS 2017 final decisions and SBA's adoption of NAICS 2017 for its size standards, SBA is issuing this notice to amend the NAICS codes eligible for use under the WOSB Program.
After review and comparison of the NAICS 2012 and NAICS 2017 industry groups, SBA has determined that NAICS 2017 reduces the number of four-digit NAICS industry groups eligible for procurements under the WOSB Program from 113 to 112 because NAICS 2017 merged two NAICS 2012 industry groups, NAICS 5171 and 5172, into one—5173.
NAICS 2017 also reduces the number of eligible six-digit NAICS codes for WOSBs to compete in under the WOSB Program from 365 to 364. The number of eligible six-digit NAICS codes for EDWOSBs to compete in under the WOSB Program (80 NAICS codes) remains the same.
The changes to the eligible six-digit NAICS industry groups resulted from the following updates in the NAICS 2017:
NAICS 2017 created new four-digit NAICS industries by merging NAICS 2012 industries. As a result of the merges, the following changes are made to the six-digit NAICS codes eligible for WOSBs under the WOSB Program:
• 2012 NAICS codes 333911 and 333913 are merged into 2017 NAICS code 333914; and
• 2012 NAICS codes 512210 and 512220 are merged into 2017 NAICS code 512250.
Additionally, six-digit NAICS codes were changed without changing their definitions or titles. In order to accommodate these changes, the following six-digit NAICS codes eligible under the WOSB Program will be revised as follows:
• 2012 NAICS code 517110 will be changed to 2017 NAICS code 517311; and
• 2012 NAICS code 517210 will be changed to 2017 NAICS code 517312
EDWOSBs are eligible to pursue set-aside or sole source contracts with 2017 NAICS code 517311. For their part, WOSBs are eligible to compete for set-aside or sole source contracts with 2017 NAICS code 517312.
Under NAICS 2017, new industries were created by splitting two industries into two parts with one part of each industry defined as a separate industry and combining other parts of the two industries to form a separate new industry. As a result of this change, the following six-digit NAICS codes eligible for WOSBs under the WOSB Program will be amended as follows:
• 2012 NAICS code 541711 will correspond to 2017 NAICS codes 541713 and 541714; and
• 2012 NAICS code 541712 will correspond to 2017 NAICS codes 541713 and 541715.
Table 1, WOSB NAICS Code Changes from NAICS 2012 to NAICS 2017, illustrates the six-digit WOSB and EDWOSB NAICS codes that are being updated as a result of implementing 2017 NAICS.
Table 2, 2017 NAICS Codes Authorized for Use under the WOSB Program—WOSB, indicates all 364 six-digit NAICS codes available for use for WOSB set-aside and sole source procurement under the WOSB Program.
Table 3, 2017 NAICS Codes Authorized for Use under the WOSB Program—EDWOSB, shows all 80 six-digit NAICS codes authorized for use for EDWOSB set-aside and sole source procurements under the WOSB Program.
SBA will post the lists of designated 2017 NAICS codes set forth in this Notice on the WOSB Program's Web page on SBA's Web site, at
Notice.
The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, is publishing a notice stating that the Government of Sudan has sustained the positive actions that gave rise to Executive Order 13761 of January 13, 2017 (“Recognizing Positive Actions by the Government of Sudan and Providing for the Revocation of Certain Sudan-Related Sanctions”), as amended by Executive Order 13804 of July 11, 2017 (“Allowing Additional Time for Recognizing Positive Actions by the Government of Sudan and Amending Executive Order 13761”). The Secretary of State has also provided to the President a report required in Executive Order 13761, as amended. As a result, the criteria in section 12(b) of Executive Order 13761, as amended, have been fulfilled, making effective sections of that Executive Order that, among other things, revoke certain economic sanctions related to Sudan.
Effective October 12, 2017.
Mark Zimmer, Department of State's Office of the U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan, tel.: 202-647-4531.
Section 12(b) of Executive Order 13761, as amended by section 1(c) of Executive Order 13804, states that sections 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of that Executive Order are effective on October 12, 2017, provided that the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, has published a notice in the
The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, hereby states that the Government of Sudan has sustained the positive actions that gave rise to Executive Order 13761 of January 13, 2017. The Secretary of State has also provided to the President the report described in section 10 of Executive Order 13761, as amended.
As a result, the criteria set forth in section 12(b) of Executive Order 13761, as amended, have been satisfied, and sections 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Executive Order 13761, as amended, are effective on October 12, 2017.
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 31, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0893 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nia Daniels, (202) 267-7626, 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 (FAA) DOT.
Suspending implementation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) Capacity Enhancement Program (CEP).
The FAA is suspending further implementation of the December 2010 ROD for the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) CEP. Due to unforeseen changes in operations at PHL, several of the airfield capacity enhancing components identified in the CEP ROD are not needed at this time. When the CEP ROD was issued, operations at PHL were forecasted to reach 555,112 in 2016 and 699,799 in 2025. PHL was consistently ranked as one of the most delayed airports in the nation. Delays at PHL contributed to delays throughout the region and across the nation and were resulting in substantial costs in time and money for passengers and airlines. However, unforeseen changes in the aviation industry and aircraft activity have resulted in considerably less activity at PHL. Actual operations at PHL in 2016 were 394,022, nearly thirty percent lower than originally forecasted. PHL is no longer experiencing severe congestion or significant delays. Over recent years, there has been no indication or reason to believe that forecasted operations and associated delays at PHL will reach the level experienced at the time FAA approved the CEP ROD. Since there is no longer
Applicable upon publication in the
Susan L. McDonald, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 508, Harrisburg, PA 17011.
In 2003, the City of Philadelphia, the airport sponsor, who owns and operates PHL, asked FAA to consider ways to accommodate existing and forecasted aviation demands. PHL was one of the airports contributing to delays throughout the national airspace system, with delays approaching 20 minutes per average annual operation. Operations (aircraft takeoffs and landings) at PHL were increasing and forecasted to reach 555,112 in 2016 and 699,799 in 2025. Delays at PHL were attributed to airfield configuration deficiencies and operational constraints; particularly in poor weather conditions. The purpose of the CEP was to enhance airport capacity in order to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area during all weather conditions. The FAA signed the ROD for the CEP on December 30, 2010.
The CEP was designed to provide PHL with five runways connected by a redesigned and more efficient taxiway system. Under CEP, Runway 17/35 would remain as a 6,500-foot-long crosswind runway. Runway 8/26 would be extended 2,000 feet to the east, for a total length of 7,000 feet with an Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) constructed at the east end of the runway. Runway 9L/27R would remain at its current length (9,500 feet) and location. Runway 9R/27L would be extended to the east by 1,500 feet, to a total length of 12,000 feet, and would be renamed Runway 9C/27C. A new 9,103-foot-long runway, Runway 9R/27L, would be constructed 1,600 feet south of Runway 9C/27C (existing 9R/27L). All existing navigational aids would be relocated as necessary, or new navigational aids installed as required to meet the approach criteria for the particular runway end. The CEP included upgrades and reconfigurations to the existing terminal complex, and the addition of a new commuter terminal east of Runway 17/35. An automated people mover (APM) was to be constructed to transport passengers between terminals and parking facilities. The CEP would also have required the relocation or expansion of many of the other airport facilities, including cargo, general aviation (corporate), maintenance, fuel, training facilities, and deicing facilities. The FAA's Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) was also to be relocated. In order to accommodate the CEP, several off-airport facilities and properties needed to be acquired or, in some cases, relocated.
The City of Philadelphia has actively worked to implement the various components of the CEP since 2010. To date, the City has acquired several parcels of land, constructed taxiway improvements, and begun work on extending Runway 9R/27L. During this period, changes in both the aviation industry and aviation activity have resulted in reductions in the number of operations at PHL. Although enplanements at PHL have remained steady, the number of aircraft takeoffs and landings has decreased. In 2016, annual operations at PHL were 394,022; nearly 30 percent lower than forecasted. This decrease in operations is attributed to airlines using larger planes that can seat more passengers, general aviation activity shifting to other regional airports, and consolidations within the airline industry, such as the merger of US Airways and American Airlines. This unforeseen drop in operations has resulted in the airport sponsor realigning its capital improvement program to address more immediate needs at the airport, and indefinitely deferring the construction of the southern runway and the Runway 8/26 extension. For these reasons, implementation of the ROD for the PHL CEP is being suspended. Projects currently underway at PHL will continue to completion. As circumstances change and new projects are proposed, environmental analyses for the projects will be conducted in accordance with NEPA.
Susan McDonald, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 508, Camp Hill, PA 17011, Telephone (717) 730-2841.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Agency request for OMB emergency information collection processing and request for comments.
FAA hereby gives notice it is submitting the following Information Collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Emergency processing under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations. FAA requests that OMB authorize the proposed collection of information identified below on, or before October 16, 2017, for a period of 180 days.
A copy of this individual information collection request (ICR), with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling FAA's unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) Program Manager: Casey Nair (tel. (202) 267-0369) or via email at
Casey Nair, FAA's unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) Program Manager, tel. (202) 267-0369 or via email at
As provided under 5 CFR 1320.13, Emergency Processing, DOT is requesting emergency processing for this new collection of information as specified in the PRA and its implementing regulations. DOT cannot reasonably comply with normal clearance procedures because the use of normal clearance procedures is reasonably likely to result in further distraction to Air Traffic Controllers and further non-compliant operations. Due to the pressing safety consideration of reducing safety reports due to non-compliant UAS operations, the FAA cannot wait the normal 90 days of public comment. Therefore, FAA is requesting OMB approval of this collection of information 7 days after publication of this Notice in the
Also included in the request for processing for the purposes of transparency are non-substantive changes to the Web site portal for requesting airspace authorizations. These changes include new branding of the Web site portal DroneZone and improvements to the external customer experience. It's expected that operations that are relatively simple will go through LAANC's automated approval process while more complex operations that require a more thorough review by FAA subject matter experts (SME) will go through the FAA's DroneZone electronic portal. Again, these changes will create greater access to airspace authorizations and decrease the number of non-compliant operations.
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FAA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of rescission of the Record of Decision.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that the ROD for the proposed I-94 East-West Corridor (70th Street to 16th Street) Project in the City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is rescinded effective with this notice.
Bethaney Bacher-Gresock, Major Project Environmental Manager, Federal Highway Administration, 525 Junction Road, Suite 8000, Madison, Wisconsin, 53717-2157, Telephone: (608) 662-2119.
The FHWA, as the lead Federal agency, in cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) signed a ROD on September 9, 2016 for the I-94 East-West Corridor (70th Street to 16th Street) Project; it is hereby rescinded. The purpose of the project was to address the deteriorated infrastructure condition of I-94, including obsolete roadway and bridge design, and thereby maintain a state of good repair and improve safety along approximately 3.5 miles of I-94. The proposed project included modernizing
WisDOT has notified FHWA that pursuant to s. 84.0145, Wis. Stats., the Legislature must specifically authorize WisDOT to proceed with the project. The recently approved 2017 Wisconsin Act 59, the State's biennial budget, did not authorize WisDOT to advance the project. Therefore, FHWA has determined, in conjunction with WisDOT, that the ROD shall be rescinded. Any future environmental action within this corridor will comply with environmental review requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act ((NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA), DOT.
Notice of intent to prepare a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The FHWA, as the Lead Federal Agency, and MDTA, as the Local Project Sponsor, are issuing this notice to advise the public of our intention to prepare a Tier 1 EIS for the Chesapeake Bay Crossing Study in Maryland. The Tier 1 EIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of addressing congestion at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, which could result in added capacity at the existing bridge or at a new location across the Chesapeake Bay. The Tier 1 EIS will be prepared in accordance with regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) and will include a range of reasonable corridor alternatives, including a “No Build” alternative.
Jeanette Mar, Environmental Program Manager, Federal Highway Administration, Maryland Division, 10 S. Howard Street, Suite 2450, Baltimore, MD 21201, (410) 779-7152, or email at
The purpose of this notice is to: (1) Alert interested parties to the FHWA and MDTA plan to prepare the Tier 1 EIS; (2) provide information on the nature of the proposed action; (3) solicit public and agency input regarding the scope of the Tier 1 EIS, including the purpose and need, alternatives to be considered, and impacts to be evaluated; and (4) announce that public and agency scoping meetings will be conducted.
The Chesapeake Bay Crossing Study Tier 1 EIS will identify the preferred corridor alternative for addressing congestion at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and evaluate its financial viability. The study area is a broad geographic area that includes the entire length of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, spanning approximately 100 miles from the northern end near Havre de Grace to the southern border with Virginia between St. Mary's and Somerset Counties. The study will include a review of existing roadway infrastructure and environmental conditions along both shores of the Bay to identify potential crossing corridors in Maryland. Each potential corridor alternative will consist of a corridor band approximately one mile wide. This width may be adjusted to accommodate the specific conditions at each crossing as the study progresses.
Once the full range of potential corridor alternatives is developed, the study will include identification of a range of reasonable corridor alternatives for screening. It is assumed that approximately ten to fifteen corridors will be identified as reasonable for additional study. These corridors will then be screened based on measurable criteria to the corridor alternatives that will be retained for analysis in the Tier 1 Draft EIS. The EIS will be prepared by MDTA for FHWA to fulfill the requirements established in NEPA pursuant to current FHWA regulations and guidance.
The EIS will be prepared as a tiered document, providing a systematic approach for advancing potential transportation improvements. The analyses undertaken during Tier 1 will result in identification of the preferred corridor alternative that best meets the study purpose and need. The FHWA intends to issue a single Final Tier 1 EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) unless FHWA determines statutory criteria or practicability considerations precluding issuance of a combined document. If the combined Final Tier 1 EIS/ROD identifies an Action (Build) alternative, MDTA will complete a Tier 2 NEPA document where the agency will evaluate site-specific, project level impacts and required mitigation commitments. The scope of future environmental studies will be commensurate with the proposed action and potential environmental consequences.
FHWA and MDTA will undertake a scoping process for the Chesapeake Bay Crossing Study that will allow the public and interested agencies to comment on the scope of the Tier 1 EIS. This public outreach effort will educate and engage stakeholders, and solicit stakeholder input. FHWA and MDTA will invite all interested individuals, organizations, and public agencies to comment on the scope of the Tier 1 EIS, including the purpose and need, corridor alternatives to be studied, impacts to be evaluated, and evaluation methods to be used.
FHWA and MDTA will develop preliminary public outreach materials (such as fact sheets, brochures, maps or other materials) to support the scoping process. A public scoping presentation in webinar format will be held in November 2017. The meeting will be held online and available for viewing at the study Web site (
Initial scoping will provide an opportunity for public input on issues relevant to the Tier 1 EIS. More information on public outreach activities, including future public open
Letters inviting agencies to be cooperating or participating in the environmental review process are being sent to those agencies that have jurisdiction or may have an interest in the Chesapeake Bay Crossing Study: Tier 1 NEPA. FHWA and MDTA will notify cooperating and participating agencies of a separate agency scoping meeting to be held October 25, 2017, in Annapolis, Maryland.
Written comments or questions on the scope of the Tier 1 EIS should be mailed to the Chesapeake Bay Crossing Study: Tier 1 NEPA, c/o Ms. Melissa Williams, Director, Division of Planning & Program Development, Maryland Transportation Authority, 2310 Broening Highway, Baltimore, MD 21224; sent via email to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 127 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On July 27, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 127 individuals from the insulin-treated diabetes mellitus prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR 35029). The public comment period ended on August 28, 2017, and one comment was received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received one comment in this preceding. An anonymous commenter stated they believe the rule preventing drivers with ITDM operating CMVs in interstate commerce should be removed and the medical examiners should determine whether a driver is fit to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. On May 4, 2015, FMCSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (80 FR 25260) proposing changes to the Diabetes standard and requesting comments from the public. FMCSA is currently evaluating comments received and drafting a Final Rule. Information related to this action can be found in the Docket at FMCSA-2005-23151.
Based upon its evaluation of the 127 renewal exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA announces its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.64(3):
As of August 1, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 35 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 37719; 80 FR 59223):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0062. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 1, 2017, and will expire on August 1, 2019.
As of August 3, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 28097; 74 FR 38481):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2009-0155. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 3, 2017, and will expire on August 3, 2019.
As of August 4, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following eight individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 34127; 76 FR 47288):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0125. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 4, 2017, and will expire on August 4, 2019.
As of August 5, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following ten individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 34127; 76 FR 47288):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0144. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 5, 2017, and will expire on August 5, 2019.
As of August 15, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 43 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 41550; 80 FR 59229):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0063. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 15, 2017, and will expire on August 15, 2019.
As of August 16, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 14 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 32704; 78 FR 50140):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0019. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 16, 2017, and will expire on August 16, 2019.
As of August 29, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 40439; 76 FR 53707):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0145. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 29, 2017, and will expire on August 29, 2019.
As of August 30, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Lloyd K. Steinkamp (WV) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 38435; 78 FR 63294).
The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0181. The exemption is applicable as of August 30,
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the applicable date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 91 individuals for an exemption from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0004 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 91 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
On February 1, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; National Association of the Deaf, (78 FR 7479), its decision to grant requests from 40 individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualification standard concerning hearing for interstate CMV drivers. Since the February 1, 2013 notice, the Agency has published additional notices granting requests from hard of hearing and deaf individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualification standard concerning hearing for interstate CMV drivers.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 11 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
The exemptions were applicable on August 25, 2017. The exemptions expire on August 25, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On July 25, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 11 individuals requesting an exemption from vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and requested comments from the public (82 FR 34564). The public comment period ended on August 24, 2017, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the July 25, 2017,
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 11 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia, enucleated eye, pars planitis, prosthetic eye, and retinal detachment. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Nine of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The two individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of six to nine years. Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV.
Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of a valid license to operate a CMV. By meeting
The applicants in this notice have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for three to 40 years. In the past three years, one driver was involved in a crash, and no drivers were convicted of moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 11 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 12 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
The exemptions were applicable on August 29, 2017. The exemptions expire on August 29, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On July 27, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 12 individuals requesting an exemption from vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and requested comments from the public (82 FR 35043). The public comment period ended on August 28, 2017, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person:
Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the July 27, 2017,
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 12 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia, aphakia, chorioretinal scarring, complete loss of vision, optic nerve atrophy, optic nerve pallor, prosthetic eye. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Eight of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The four individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of three to ten years. Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV.
Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of a valid license to operate a CMV. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions.
The applicants in this notice have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for three to 42 years. In the past three years, two drivers were involved in crashes, and no drivers were convicted of moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future. Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 12 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from five individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0181 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The five individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The advisory criteria states the following:
If an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the Medical Examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a six-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.
In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a five-year period or more.
As a result of Medical Examiners misinterpreting advisory criteria as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate CMV drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” Since the January 15, 2013 notice, the Agency has published additional notices granting requests from individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP) (78 FR 3069).
Mr. Clark is a 44-year old Class A driver in Kentucky. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2006. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2015. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Clark receiving an exemption.
Mr. Gress is a 58-year old Class AM driver in Pennsylvania. He has a history of post traumatic seizure due to traumatic brain injury and has remained seizure free since 2003. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Gress receiving an exemption.
Mr. Lamkin is a 47-year old Class DB driver in Kentucky. He has a history of multiple past generalized seizures and has remained seizure free since 1998. He takes anti-seizure medications, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2007. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Lamkin receiving an exemption.
Mr. Lewis is a 55-year old Class A driver in North Carolina. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 1984. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2004. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Lewis receiving an exemption.
Mr. Moran is a 22-year old Class D driver in Massachusetts. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2009. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2010. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Moran receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces decision to renew exemptions for five individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable June 10, 2017. The exemptions will expire on June 10, 2019.
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On July 3, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for five individuals from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR 30939). The public comment period ended on August 2, 2017, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person:
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
FMCSA received no comments in response to this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the five renewal exemption applications, FMCSA announces its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(11).
As of June 10, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers. (82 FR 30939):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0384. Their exemptions were applicable on June 10, 2017, and will expire on June 10, 2019.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 27 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0234 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 27 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population.
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e). Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Mr. Aden, 70, has had ITDM since 1997. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Aden understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Aden meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Amaral, 62, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Amaral understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Amaral meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A from California.
Mr. Biel, 71, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Biel understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Biel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Comer, 32, has had ITDM since 1987. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Comer understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Comer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Arkansas.
Mr. Conner, 49, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him
Mr. Flores, 57, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Flores understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Flores meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Fulks, 32, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fulks understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fulks meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Gonzalez, 46, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gonzalez understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gonzalez meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Hayden, 42, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hayden understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hayden meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Hubenka, 57, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hubenka understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hubenka meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska.
Mr. Hurd, 53, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hurd understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hurd meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from South Carolina.
Mr. Jacobs, 58, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jacobs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jacobs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Michigan.
Mr. Jones, 45, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jones understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jones meets the requirements
Mr. Kelly, 63, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kelly understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kelly meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Maryland.
Mr. Leboffe, 25, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Leboffe understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Leboffe meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Littlefield, 26, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Littlefield understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Littlefield meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Rhode Island.
Ms. Mayor, 49, has had ITDM since 2012. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Mayor understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Mayor meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from Nevada.
Mr. Nekuda, 60, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nekuda understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nekuda meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska.
Mr. Reece, 45, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Reece understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Reece meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Rivera, 36, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rivera understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rivera meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Robbins, 49, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Robbins understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Robbins meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.
Mr. Rodriguez, 37, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12
Mr. Rud, 68, has had ITDM since 1954. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rud understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rud meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Ms. Simmons, 70, has had ITDM since 2016. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Simmons understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Simmons meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from Idaho.
Mr. Van Alphen, 47, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Van Alphen understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
Mr. Van Alphen meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Williams, 22, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Williams understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Williams meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Wray, 55, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wray understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wray meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date's section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant the Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA) a limited exemption from the requirement to use an electronic logging device (ELD) to record the driver's hours-of-service (HOS) no later than December 18, 2017. This limited exemption provides that all drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) rented for 8 days or less, regardless of reason, are not required to use an ELD in the vehicle. While operating under this exemption, drivers will remain subject to the standard hours-of-service (HOS) limits, maintain a paper record of duty status (RODS) if required, and maintain a copy of the rental agreement on the vehicle. FMCSA has analyzed the exemption application and the public comments and has determined that the exemption, subject to the terms and conditions imposed, will achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.
The exemption is applicable from October 11, 2017 through October 11, 2022.
Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 614-942-6477. Email:
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
TRALA is a national trade association of companies whose members engage in commercial truck renting and leasing, vehicle finance leasing, and consumer truck rental. Its membership encompasses major independent firms such as Ryder System, Penske Truck Leasing, U-Haul, Budget, and Enterprise Truck Rental, as well as small and medium-size businesses that generally participate as members of four leasing group systems: Idealease, NationaLease, PACCAR Leasing Company, and Mack Leasing System-Volvo Truck Leasing System. In total, its nearly 500 member companies operate more than 5,000 commercial leasing and rental locations, and more than 20,000 consumer rental locations throughout the United States, Mexico and Canada.
“Renting” is a term of art in the vehicle leasing industry, generally meaning a transaction granting the exclusive use of a vehicle for 30 days or less, whereas a lease generally means a transaction granting the exclusive use of a vehicle for more than 30 days. TRALA's application is on behalf of all drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) rented for 30 days or less.
While TRALA stated that it fully supports FMCSA's final rule to mandate ELDs, it is concerned about the unintended technical and operational consequences that will unfairly and adversely affect short-term rental vehicles. The commercial vehicle rental industry provides short-term rental services to a large population of drivers on a daily basis. Most of these drivers will normally employ an ELD to comply with the new rule. Considering the significant number of different device platforms and subscription options, it is unlikely that the driver's device would be able to communicate properly with the rental company's telematics platform. TRALA states that while FMCSA recognized during the rulemaking process these issues associated with a lack of interoperability among ELD systems, and required certain technical specifications in the final rule, the Agency stopped short of requiring full interoperability among ELDs.
Many commenters to the proposed ELD rule raised similar interoperability concerns. However, the rule requires only that ELDs can transfer data electronically via either a “telematics” approach capable of wireless web service, or a “local” method capable of Bluetooth and USB 2.0 transfer. Furthermore, according to TRALA, the Agency decided “not to require full interoperability between all ELDs,” reasoning that “[a]lthough full interoperability would have some benefits, it would also be complicated and costly” (80 FR 78327, December 16, 2015). According to commenters, the Agency left it to the ELD manufacturers to address many concerns regarding non-interoperability of the various software systems on the market.
TRALA elaborated on its two primary issues of concern relating to the exemption request: (1) Data transfer and, (2) data liability.
TRALA described two potential data transfer problems. First, a customer who is required to use an ELD may rent a truck that has one operating system, while the customer may use another operating system for its drivers; data cannot be transferred from the rental vehicle to the customer's system unless both ELDs are on the same platform. In addition, upon request by an authorized safety official, a driver must produce and transfer the driver's HOS records from an ELD in accordance with 49 CFR 395.24(d). This would include the driver's duty status for the current 24-hour period and the prior seven days. However, if the driver is operating a rental vehicle with an ELD that is not compatible with the driver's normal ELD system, the data will not transfer to the new vehicle's ELD system. TRALA states that scenario would be considered an “ELD malfunction” and the driver would be required to reconstruct the RODS for the current 24-hour period and the previous seven consecutive days on graph grid paper logs. TRALA's application requests that drivers of short-term rental vehicles be allowed to avoid the uncertainties of attempting compliance with the HOS rules using non-compatible ELD systems, and instead use paper RODS during the rental period.
TRALA contends that CMVs are more prone to break-downs than non-CMVs because of their heavy use. When CMVs
TRALA's second primary issue involves data liability concerns. TRALA states that it has been suggested that rental companies should be able to collect and report ELD data to customers, allowing customers to access the data seamlessly. However, the final rule does not require ELDs to be capable of reading and combining exported data from other providers. Furthermore, lessors do not have the ability to combine data from different devices into one report. Requiring lessors to bear the burden of safeguarding the data for each renter would expose the rental company to tremendous risk with respect to data security and protection. All parties involved in the business transaction would probably reject rental companies' assumption of these risks on behalf of their customers.
On March 22, 2017, FMCSA published notice of this application and requested public comment (82 FR 14789). The Agency received 429 docket comments, over 95% supporting the TRALA request. Among those in favor of the exemption were the following industry trade associations: The American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA); the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD), National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC), National Private Truck Council (NPTC), Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), and the National Automobile Dealership Association (NADA). The fireworks industry, including the American Pyrotechnics Association (APA), filed 30 comments in support of the request. Principal opponents of the exemption were the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) and the Owner-Operator Independent Driver's Association (OOIDA).
Commenters gave three primary reasons in support of the request. First, they believe there is currently a significant technology gap that will not allow different ELD systems to communicate and share information with each other. As many rental companies must individually collect their own data to comply with the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) and International Registration Plan, the interoperability of ELD technology will create more challenges than solutions for the short-term rental market as compared to the vast majority of trucks that are owned or leased.
Further, all ELDs must be capable of exporting data in a standard file format to facilitate importing by other systems. However, devices and systems are not required to be capable of importing these records. This means that transferring data, whether through “memory sticks” or other applications, will not work with the technology currently available. TRALA states that several ELD manufacturers have already commented that “plug and play” devices are years away from being operational; and given the small percentage of trucks that would be impacted by these efforts, it is unlikely that major technological advances will occur in the next few years.
Another benefit of a short-term rental exemption would be a simpler roadside inspection process since short-term rentals of 30 days or less do not require a truck to display the user's U.S. DOT number. The continued use of paper logs would alleviate any confusion in the inspection process since a law enforcement officer would immediately recognize a short-term rental vehicle when handed the rental agreement. That consistency would speed up the process and create less confusion. This current rule also requires that a rental contract of 30 days or less be carried in the truck at all times. This existing requirement can allow authorities to confirm the short-term nature of the rental.
Those opposing the TRALA request commented that the application does not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for the exemption. It fails to consider practical alternatives, justify the need for the exemption, provide an analysis of the safety impacts the requested exemption may cause, and provide information on the specific countermeasures to be undertaken to ensure that the exemption will achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved absent the exemption.
A second comment in opposition noted that TRALA cites technical concerns regarding interoperability of data between devices, truck break-downs, and data transfer and liability concerns as reasons why their vehicles should be exempted from the ELD mandate. While these points are legitimate, the commenter argued that they are not limited to the truck renting and leasing industry. Carriers of all sizes will encounter these same problems, along with ELD manufacturers and law enforcement agencies. Exempting one segment of the trucking industry will not change that.
All comments are available for review in the docket for this notice.
FMCSA has evaluated TRALA's application and the public comments and decided to grant a limited exemption for the driver and carrier of a CMV rented for 8 days or fewer, regardless of reason. FMCSA has determined that an exemption period of up to 30 days, as requested, is unnecessarily long given the importance of ELDs to ensure the accuracy of HOS records. One condition of the exemption is that a copy of the rental agreement must be carried on the vehicle and made available to law enforcement. Another is that the driver must possess copies of his or her RODS for the current and prior 7 days, if required on those days.
A high proportion of the comments supported the exemption. The Agency believes that an exemption period of up to 8 days for drivers of rental CMVs would give most carriers sufficient time to repair or replace their usual vehicles while minimizing any temptation to extend non-ELD operations. The use of paper records of duty status (RODS) will not create an undue risk of non-compliance when limited to this short period. An 8-day exemption period coincides with 49 CFR 395.34(d), which provides that a motor carrier that receives or discovers information about an ELD malfunction must correct it within 8 days. During that 8-day malfunction window, the driver must reconstruct the RODS for the current 24-hour period, and the previous seven consecutive days. The 8-day exemption for rental CMVs would follow that pattern. The exempt driver must have a copy of his/her RODS for the current day and the prior seven days. Under these conditions, FMCSA believes that exempt drivers and carriers—like those operating under section 395.34(d)—are likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption (49 CFR 381.305(a)). In addition, the 2014 “The Rental Truck Safety Study Report to Congress,” prepared by FMCSA,
• This exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 395.8(a)(1)(i) is effective from October 11, 2017 through October 11, 2022.
• This exemption covers a rental period of 8 days or fewer, regardless of reason for the rental. Evidence that a carrier has replaced one rental CMV with another on 8-day cycles or attempted to renew a rental agreement for the same CMV for an additional 8 days will be regarded as a violation of the exemption and subject the carrier to the penalties for failure to use an ELD.
• Drivers must have a copy of this notice or equivalent signed FMCSA exemption document in their possession while operating under the terms of the exemption. The exemption document must be presented to law enforcement officials upon request.
• Drivers must have a copy of the rental agreement in the CMV, and make it available to law enforcement officers on request. The agreement must clearly identify the parties to the agreement, the vehicle, and the dates of the rental period.
• Driver must possess copies of their RODS for the current day and the prior 7 days, if required on those days.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.
Carriers operating under this exemption must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's drivers operating under the terms of this exemption. The notification must include the following information:
(a) Identity of Exemption: “TRALA”
(b) Date of the accident,
(c) City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or closest to the accident scene,
(d) Driver's name and license number,
(e) Co-driver's name and license number,
(f) Vehicle number and State license number,
(g) Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
(h) Number of fatalities,
(i) The police-reported cause of the accident,
(j) Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws, motor carrier safety regulations, and
(k) The total driving time and total on-duty time period prior to the accident.
Accident notifications shall be emailed to
FMCSA believes that drivers of short-term rental vehicles will continue to maintain their previous safety record while operating under this exemption. However, should problems occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public interest, including revocation or restriction of the exemption. FMCSA will immediately restrict participation in the exemption for failure to comply with its terms and conditions.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 47 individuals from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on August 29, 2017. The exemptions expire on August 29, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On July 27, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 47 individuals requesting an exemption from diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and requested comments from the public (82 FR 35033). The public comment period ended on August 28, 2017, and two comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. Givonna Hymel stated that she believes the exemption application process should be shortened, and that the program in its current form is unfair and
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the program eligibility criteria and an individualized assessment of information submitted by each applicant. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the July 27, 2017,
These 47 applicants have had ITDM over a range of one to 42 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past five years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keeping a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 47 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 22 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
The exemptions were applicable on September 12, 2017. The exemptions expire on September 12, 2019. Each group of exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On August 10, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 22 individuals requesting an exemption from vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and requested comments from the public (82 FR 37504). The public comment period ended on September 11, 2017, and one comment was received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person:
Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Vicky Johnson stated Minnesota Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) has no objections to Ray M. Bliss retaining his CDL with his vision exemption.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the August 10, 2017,
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 22 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia, central retinal vein occlusion, complete loss of vision, fibrosis, macular scarring, phthisis bulbi, prosthetic eye, retinal scarring, and scotoma. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Nineteen of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The three individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of five to 23 years. Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV.
Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of a valid license to operate a CMV. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions.
The applicants in this notice have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for three to 38 years. In the past three years, one driver was involved in a crash, and no drivers were convicted of moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 22 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant exemptions for four individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on September 2, 2017. The exemptions expire on September 2, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001, f
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On August 2, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to grant exemptions for four individuals from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR 36072). The public comment period ended on September 1, 2017, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391—MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: § 391.41(b)(8), paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.]
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the four exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA announces its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(8):
As of September 2, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following four individuals have satisfied the conditions for
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 86 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirements in one eye.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2017.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2005-21254; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2007-25246; FMCSA-2007-2663; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0121; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0140; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0189; FMCSA-2013-0026; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2013-0165; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2015-0049; FMCSA-2015-0052; FMCSA-2015-0053; FMCSA-2015-0055 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for two years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two year period.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person:
Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
The 86 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 86 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement (64 FR 27027; 64 FR 51568; 64 FR 68195; 65 FR 20251; 65 FR 33406; 65 FR 57234; 66 FR 30502; 66 FR 41654; 66 FR 48504; 67 FR 17102; 68 FR 13360; 68 FR 44837; 68 FR 52811; 68 FR 54775; 68 FR 61860; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 30999; 70 FR 41811; 70 FR 46567; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR 53412; 70 FR 61165; 70 FR 61493; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 1050; 72 FR 1051; 72 FR 8417; 72 FR 9397; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR 36099; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 40359; 72 FR 40362; 72 FR 52419; 72 FR 52421; 72 FR 54971; 72 FR 62896; 73 FR 78423; 74 FR 6211; 74 FR 19270; 74 FR 26461; 74 FR 26466; 74 FR 34074; 74 FR 34395; 74 FR 34630; 74 FR 37295; 74 FR 41971; 74 FR 43221; 74 FR 48343; 74 FR 49069; 74 FR 53581; 75 FR 79083; 76 FR 17481; 76 FR 25762; 76 FR 25766; 76 FR 28125; 76 FR 37169; 76 FR 37885; 76 FR 44652; 76 FR 44653; 76 FR 49528; 76 FR 50318; 76 FR 53708; 76 FR 54530; 76 FR 55465; 76 FR 55467; 76 FR 61143; 76 FR 62143; 76 FR 64171; 76 FR 67246; 77 FR 74734; 78 FR 4531; 78 FR 22598; 78 FR 24300; 78 FR 24798; 78 FR 34143; 78 FR 37270; 78 FR 37274; 78 FR 41975; 78 FR 46407; 78 FR 47818; 78 FR 52602; 78 FR 56986; 78 FR 56993; 78 FR 63307; 78 FR 68137; 78 FR 77782; 78 FR 78477; 79 FR 4531; 79 FR 53708; 79 FR 73686; 80 FR 2473; 80 FR 12248; 80 FR 14223; 80 FR 18693; 80 FR 22773; 80 FR 29152; 80 FR 31635; 80 FR 31636; 80 FR 33011; 80 FR 35699; 80 FR 36395; 80 FR 37718; 80 FR 40122; 80 FR 41547; 80 FR 44188; 80 FR 45573; 80 FR 48402; 80 FR 48404; 80 FR 48411; 80 FR 48413; 80 FR 49302; 80 FR 50917; 80 FR 59225; 80 FR 62161; 80 FR 62163). They have submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of October and are discussed below:
As of October 3, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 54 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (65 FR 33406; 65 FR 57234; 66 FR 30502; 66 FR 41654; 68 FR 13360; 68 FR 44837; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 41811; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 1051; 72 FR 8417; 72 FR 9397; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR 36099; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 40362; 72 FR 52419; 73 FR 78423; 74 FR 19270; 74 FR 26461; 74 FR 26466; 74 FR 34395; 74 FR 34630; 74 FR 37295; 74 FR 41971; 74 FR 48343; 74 FR 6211; 75 FR 79083; 76 FR 17481; 76 FR 25762; 76 FR 25766; 76 FR 28125; 76 FR 37169; 76 FR 37885; 76 FR 44652; 76 FR 44653; 76 FR 49528; 76 FR 50318; 76 FR 53708; 76 FR 54530; 76 FR 61143; 77 FR 74734; 78 FR 4531; 78 FR 22598; 78 FR 24300; 78 FR 24798; 78 FR 34143; 78 FR 37270; 78 FR 37274; 78 FR 41975; 78 FR 46407; 78 FR 52602; 78 FR 56986; 78 FR 56993; 78 FR 77782; 78 FR 78477; 79 FR 4531; 79 FR 53708; 79 FR 73686; 80 FR 2473; 80 FR 12248; 80 FR 14223; 80 FR 18693; 80 FR 22773; 80 FR 29152; 80 FR 31635; 80 FR 31636; 80 FR 33011; 80 FR 35699; 80 FR 36395; 80 FR 37718; 80 FR 40122; 80 FR 41547; 80 FR 44188; 80 FR 45573; 80 FR 48402; 80 FR 48404; 80 FR 48411; 80 FR 48413; 80 FR 49302; 80 FR 50917; 80 FR 59225; 80 FR 62161; 80 FR 62163):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket numbers: FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2007-25246; FMCSA-2007-2663; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0121; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0140; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2013-0026; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2015-0049; FMCSA-2015-0052; FMCSA-2015-0053; FMCSA-2015-0055. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 3, 2017, and will expire on October 3, 2019.
As of October 23, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0165. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 23, 2017, and will expire on October 23, 2019.
As of October 24, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 14 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (64 FR 27027; 64 FR 51568; 66 FR 30502; 66 FR 41654; 66 FR 48504; 68 FR 44837; 68 FR 54775; 70 FR 30999; 70 FR 41811; 70 FR 46567; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR 53412; 70 FR 61493; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 40359; 72 FR 52421; 72 FR 54971; 72 FR 62896; 74 FR 34074; 74 FR 41971; 74 FR 43221; 74 FR 49069; 76 FR 55467; 76 FR 62143; 78 FR 77782; 80 FR 59225):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket numbers: FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2005-21254; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2007-27897. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 24, 2017, and will expire on October 24, 2019.
As of October 30, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (64 FR 68195; 65 FR 20251; 67 FR 17102; 68 FR 52811; 68 FR 61860; 70 FR 61165; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 1050; 74 FR 49069; 74 FR 53581; 76 FR 64171; 78 FR 68137; 80 FR 59225):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket numbers: FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2006-26066. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 30, 2017, and will expire on October 30, 2019.
As of October 31, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (76 FR 55465; 76 FR 67246; 78 FR 77782; 80 FR 59225:
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0189. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 31, 2017, and will expire on October 31, 2019.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification if he/her is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 86 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 12 individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on September 12, 2017. The exemptions expire on September 12, 2019. Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2017
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0050; FMCSA-2012-0294; FMCSA-2013-0106; FMCSA-2014-0214; FMCSA-2014-0216; FMCSA-2014-0381; FMCSA-2015-0115; FMCSA-2015-0116; FMCSA-2015-0117 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for five years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391—MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: § 391.41(b)(8), paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.]
The 12 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 12 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The 12 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each driver has received a renewed exemption.
As of September 12, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2012-0050; FMCSA-2012-0294; FMCSA-2013-0106; FMCSA-2014-0214; FMCSA-2014-0216; FMCSA-2014-0381; FMCSA-2015-0115; FMCSA-2015-0116; FMCSA-2015-0117. Their exemptions are applicable as of September 12, 2017, and will expire on September 12, 2019.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 12 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Under part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this provides the public notice that on September 1, 2017, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2017-0096.
NS seeks the discontinuance of control point BV&E located at milepost (MP) H-260.3 between Rutland Jct. MP H-197.00 and Smithville, GA MP H-275.0 on the Albany District, Georgia Division, Americus, GA.
NS will replace the power-operated switch with a hand-operated switch protected by a switch circuit controller and derail. The current controlled signals will be replaced with automatic signals.
NS states the reason for the proposed change is that train operations in this area no longer support the need for the power-operated switch due to the limited number of movements that would require the switch to be in the reverse position. NS has also discontinued the use of the former 0-Line that ties into the main track and is made inaccessible at the approach signal to BV&E Jct.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by November 27, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on September 19, 2017, Mount Vernon Terminal Railway (MVT) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 223. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2007-29238.
Specifically, MVT seeks an extension of its existing waiver of compliance from the glazing requirements of 49 CFR 223.11, for one of its locomotives, MVT 1200. MVT states that locomotive MVT 1200 is used two to three times per week for a total of approximately two hours per week at speeds not exceeding 10 miles per hour. MVT 1200 is used exclusively for switching operations within yard limits, which includes about 0.5 miles of main track and 0.5 miles of side tracks and spurs.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by November 27, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this provides the public notice that on August 2#, 2017, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2017-0097.
NS seeks to discontinue control point (CP) East End Avenue on the CNO&TP District at milepost (MP) 337.2, Central Division, Chattanooga, TN.
CP East End Avenue will be removed from service. All associated signal equipment, existing power switches, movable point frogs and slip switches will be retired or converted to hand operation. Zero track is currently governed by Rule 261. Cavalier and AGS #2 track will become yard leads and be governed under Yard Limit Rule 93. AGS #1 will be renamed Main #2 and CNO&TPO Main will be renamed Main #1; both will remain governed by Rule 261.
NS states the reason for proposed change is as part of the rationalization, reconfiguration, and implementation of positive train control through the Chattanooga, TN, area between CP Pratt and CP 23rd Street.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by November 27, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special
Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2017.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2017.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before October 26, 2017.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, November 9, 2017.
Otis Simpson at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3332.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be held Thursday, November 9, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Otis Simpson. For more information please contact Otis Simpson at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3332, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include a discussion on various letters, and other issues related to written communications from the IRS.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning the excise tax on certain transfers of qualifying geothermal or mineral interests.
Written comments should be received on or before December 11, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Taquesha Cain, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
United States Sentencing Commission
Request for public comment.
In August 2017, the Commission indicated that one of its policy priorities would be the “[c]ontinuation of its multiyear study of offenses involving synthetic cathinones (such as methylone, MDPV, and mephedrone) and synthetic cannabinoids (such as JWH-018 and AM-2201), as well as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), fentanyl, and fentanyl analogues, and consideration of appropriate guideline amendments, including simplifying the determination of the most closely related substance under Application Note 6 of the Commentary to § 2D1.1.”
Public comment regarding the issues for comment set forth in this notice should be received by the Commission not later than November 13, 2017.
All written comment should be sent to the Commission by electronic mail or regular mail. The email address for public comment is
Christine Leonard, Director, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, (202) 502-4500,
The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) and submits guideline amendments to the Congress not later than the first day of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p).
In August 2016, the Commission indicated that one of its priorities would be the “[s]tudy of offenses involving MDMA/Ecstasy, synthetic cannabinoids (such as JWH-018 and AM-2201), and synthetic cathinones (such as Methylone, MDPV, and Mephedrone), and consideration of any amendments to the
On December 19, 2016, the Commission published a notice inviting general comment on synthetic cathinones (MDPV, methylone, and mephedrone) and synthetic cannabinoids (JWH-018 and AM-2201), as well as about the application of the factors the Commission traditionally considers when determining the marihuana equivalencies for specific controlled substances to the substances under study.
On April 18, 2017, the Commission held a public hearing related to this priority. The Commission received testimony from experts on the synthetic drugs related to the study, including testimony about their chemical structure, pharmacological effects, trafficking patterns, and community impact.
On June 21, 2017, the Commission published a second notice requesting public comment on issues specifically related to MDMA/ecstasy and methylone, one of the synthetic cathinones included in the Commission's study.
On August 25, 2017, the Commission published a third notice requesting public comment on issues related to (1) synthetic cathinones and (2) tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and synthetic cannabinoids.
As part of its continuing work on this priority, the Commission is publishing this fourth request for public comment focusing on issues related to fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. In addition to the substance-specific topics discussed below, the Commission anticipates that its work will continue to be guided by the factors the Commission traditionally considers when determining the marihuana equivalencies for specific controlled substances, including their chemical structure, pharmacological effects, legislative and scheduling history, potential for addiction and abuse, the patterns of abuse and harms associated with their abuse, and the patterns of trafficking and harms associated with their trafficking.
The Commission will also consider possible approaches to simplify the determination of the most closely related substance under Application Note 6 of the Commentary to § 2D1.1. The Commission has received comment from the public suggesting that questions regarding “the most closely related controlled substance” arise frequently in cases involving the substances included in the study, and that the Application Note 6 process requires courts to hold extensive hearings to receive expert testimony on behalf of the government and the defendant.
The Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801
The Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1 contains entries for both “fentanyl” and “fentanyl analogue,” at ratios equivalent to those established by statute. The Drug Equivalency Tables in the Commentary to § 2D1.1 clearly identify fentanyl with the specific substance associated with the statutory minimum penalty by providing a marihuana equivalency for 1 gm of “Fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] Propenamide)” equal to 2.5 kg of marihuana (
In cases involving a fentanyl analogue other than the two listed above, courts are required by Application Note 6 of the Commentary to § 2D1.1 to “determine the base offense level using the marihuana equivalency of the most closely related controlled substance referenced in [§ 2D1.1].” Section 2D1.1 provides a three-step process for making this determination.
1. The Commission invites general comment on fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, particularly on their chemical structures, their pharmacological effects, potential for addiction and abuse, the patterns of abuse and harms associated with their abuse, and the patterns of trafficking and harms associated with their trafficking. How are fentanyl and fentanyl analogues manufactured, distributed, possessed, and used? What are the characteristics of the offenders involved in these various activities? What harms are posed by these activities? How do these harms differ from those associated with other opioids such as heroin, morphine, hydrocodone, or oxycodone? How, if at all, do the harms associated with pharmaceutical fentanyl differ from the harms associated with non-pharmaceutical fentanyl? To the extent the harms posed by these substances are different, should the guidelines provide different penalties for pharmaceutical fentanyl and non-pharmaceutical fentanyl?
2. Fentanyl, when identified as N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propenamide, and analogues of that specific chemical, are subject to mandatory minimum penalties under current law, with analogues punished four times more harshly than fentanyl itself. Those penalties have shaped the guidelines provisions related to fentanyl since 1987. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are controlled substances that might commonly be regarded as “fentanyl analogues” that are not analogues of N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propenamide and therefore do not meet the statutory definition of an “analogue.” If so, should the guidelines provide penalties for such controlled substances consistent with the mandatory minimum provisions applicable to fentanyl analogues that meet the statutory definition? Should the guidelines instead account for such substances in a different manner than
3. The Commission invites general comment on whether and, if so how, the guidelines should be amended to account for fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. How, if at all, should the guideline provisions related to fentanyl and the fentanyl analogues specifically listed in § 2D1.1 be amended? For example, should the Commission revise the marihuana equivalencies already provided for fentanyl, Alpha-Methylfentanyl, and 3-Methylfentanyl? If so, what equivalency should the Commission provide for each substance, and why?
Should the Commission amend § 2D1.1 to account for other unlisted fentanyl analogues? For example, should the Commission establish marihuana equivalencies for fentanyl analogues currently not listed in § 2D1.1? If so, what specific fentanyl analogues should the Commission include in the Drug Equivalency Tables and what equivalency should the Commission provide for each such substance? What factors should the Commission consider when deciding whether to account for these substances?
4. The Commission has received anecdotal information about the availability of several fentanyl analogues. How are these novel fentanyl analogues developed, manufactured and trafficked? To what extent are these substances legally manufactured for pharmaceutical purposes and then diverted for illicit trafficking and use, as opposed to having been manufactured illegally? How complex is the procedure to develop these substances and how frequently are they introduced into the illicit drug market?
Instead of providing marihuana equivalencies for individual fentanyl analogues, should the Commission consider establishing a single marihuana equivalency applicable to all fentanyl analogues? Are fentanyl analogues sufficiently similar to one another in chemical structure, pharmacological effects, potential for addiction and abuse, patterns of trafficking and abuse, and associated harms, to support the adoption of a broad class-based approach for sentencing purposes? If so, what marihuana equivalency should the Commission provide for fentanyl analogues as a class and why? What factors should the Commission account for if it considers adopting a broad class-based approach for fentanyl and its analogues? Should the Commission define “fentanyl analogues” for purposes of this broad class-based approach? If so, how? Are there any fentanyl analogues that should not be included as part of a broad class-based approach and for which the Commission should provide a marihuana equivalency separate from other fentanyl analogues? If so, what equivalency should the Commission provide for each such fentanyl analogue, and why?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of a broad class-based approach for fentanyl analogues? If the Commission were to provide a different approach to account for fentanyl analogues in the guidelines, what should that different approach be?
28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o), (p), (x); USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 4.4.
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 13, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, VA Clearance Officer—Office of Quality Privacy and Risk, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before 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. 2301(f)(1).
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before December 11, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0171 in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through FDMS.
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. 3019.
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.
By direction of the Secretary.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review (RTR) conducted for the chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills regulated under the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). We are finalizing our proposed determination that risks from the source category are acceptable and that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We are also finalizing amendments to the NESHAP based on developments in practices, processes, and control technologies identified as part of the technology review. These final amendments include revisions to the opacity monitoring provisions and the addition of requirements to maintain proper operation of the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) automatic voltage control (AVC). Additional amendments are also being finalized including the requirement to conduct 5-year periodic emissions testing, and submit electronic reports; revisions to provisions addressing periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); and technical and editorial changes. These amendments are made under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and will improve the effectiveness of the rule.
This final rule is effective on October 11, 2017. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 11, 2017]
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For questions about this final action, contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code: E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3158; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email address:
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source category listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the Internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at:
Additional information is available on the RTR Web site at
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by December 11, 2017. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from stationary sources. In the first stage, the EPA must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAPs listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. “Major sources” are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAPs. For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAPs achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques, including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAPs when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).
As defined in the
We already completed the RTR for 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, with final amendments published in the
According to the results of the EPA's 2011 pulp and paper Information Collection Request (ICR), and updates based on more recent information, there are a total of 107 major sources in the United States (U.S.) that conduct chemical recovery combustion operations, including 97 kraft pulp mills, 1 soda pulp mill, 3 sulfite pulp mills, and 6 stand-alone semichemical pulp mills.
Subpart MM of 40 CFR part 63 includes numerical emission limits for recovery furnaces, SDTs, lime kilns, and sulfite and semichemical combustion units. The control systems used by most mills to meet the subpart MM emission limits are as follows:
• Recovery furnaces: ESPs, wet scrubbers, and nondirect contact evaporator (NDCE) furnace design with dry-bottom ESP and dry particulate matter (PM) return system.
• Smelt dissolving tanks: Wet scrubbers, mist eliminators, and venting to recovery furnace.
• Lime kilns: ESPs and wet scrubbers.
• Sulfite combustion units: Wet scrubbers and mist eliminators.
• Semichemical combustion units: Wet scrubbers, ESPs, and regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs).
On December 30, 2016, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
• Reduce the opacity limits for recovery furnaces;
• Revise the opacity monitoring allowances for recovery furnaces and lime kilns (
• Require ESP parameter monitoring for recovery furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESPs;
• Clarify the monitoring requirements for combined ESP/wet scrubber controls;
• Provide alternative monitoring parameters for SDT wet scrubbers;
• Require periodic air emissions performance testing once every 5 years as facilities renew their operating permits;
• Eliminate the SSM exemption;
• Provide alternative monitoring parameters for wet scrubbers and ESPs during SSM periods;
• Specify procedures for establishing continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) operating limits;
• Reduce the reporting frequency and require electronic submission for excess emissions reports;
• Require mills to submit electronic copies of performance test reports; and
• Make a number of technical and editorial changes.
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the subpart MM source category and amends the subpart MM NESHAP based on those determinations. This action also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including a requirement for 5-year periodic emissions testing; electronic reporting; revisions to provisions addressing periods of SSM; and technical and editorial changes. This final action is based on the proposed rulemaking (published in the
The EPA proposed no changes to the subpart MM NESHAP based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). We are finalizing our proposed determination that risks from the source category are acceptable, considering all of the health information and factors evaluated, and also considering risk estimation uncertainty. We are also finalizing our proposed determination that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety, as well as our finding regarding the absence of adverse environmental effects. The EPA received no new data or other information during the public comment period that affected our determinations. Therefore, we are not requiring additional controls and, thus, are not making any revisions to the existing standards under CAA section 112(f).
We determined that there are developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the NESHAP for this source category. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), we are revising the NESHAP as follows:
• Revising the opacity monitoring allowance for all recovery furnaces equipped with ESPs from 6 percent to 2 percent;
• Revising the opacity monitoring allowance for all lime kilns equipped with ESPs from 6 percent to 3 percent;
• Adding a requirement for recovery furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESPs to maintain proper operation of the ESP AVC;
• Adding the aforementioned ESP requirement and wet scrubber parameter monitoring for emission units equipped with an ESP followed by a wet scrubber; and
• Providing alternative monitoring, specifically scrubber fan amperage, as an alternative to pressure drop measurement, for SDT dynamic scrubbers operating at ambient pressure and low-pressure entrainment scrubbers on SDTs where the fan speed does not vary.
As proposed, we are finalizing amendments to the subpart MM NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with
The 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM monitoring requirements were analyzed and adjusted to ensure that continuous compliance can feasibly be demonstrated during periods of startup and shutdown. Subpart MM requires continuous opacity monitoring to indicate ongoing compliance with the PM emission limits. In developing the proposed standards for the subpart MM RTR, the EPA reviewed numerous continuous opacity monitoring datasets that included periods of startup and shutdown, and stated that the affected units would be able to comply with the proposed standards at all times. Further analysis of the datasets show that sufficient startup and shutdown data were included in the analyses to form the basis for our conclusions, even though not all units provided such data. Subpart MM also requires continuous RTO operating temperature and wet scrubber parameter monitoring. As proposed, we are removing the requirement to consider wet scrubber pressure drop during startup and shutdown because pressure drop is dependent on gas flow, which is transient (changing) during startup and shutdown. Continuous compliance is based on scrubber liquid flow rate monitoring during startup and shutdown instead of both pressure drop and liquid flow rate. We are also limiting the times when corrective actions are implemented or violations are recorded to times when spent pulping liquor or lime mud is fed (as applicable). The final rule specifies that corrective action can include completion of transient startup and shutdown conditions as expediently as possible.
Other changes to the NESHAP that do not fall into the categories in the previous sections include:
• Requiring facilities to conduct periodic air emissions performance testing, with the first of the tests to be conducted within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards, and thereafter no longer than 5 years following the previous performance test;
• Specifying procedures for establishing operating limits based on data recorded by CPMS, including the frequency for recording parameters and the averaging period for reducing the recorded readings;
• Reducing the frequency for submitting excess emissions reports from quarterly to semiannually in conjunction with requiring electronic reporting of excess emissions (in the future, as reporting forms are tested and become available—see section IV.F of this preamble);
• Requiring facilities to submit electronic copies of performance test reports;
• Requiring facilities to submit initial notifications and notifications of compliance status electronically; and
• Making various technical and editorial corrections.
The revisions to the NESHAP being promulgated in this action are effective on October 11, 2017. The compliance date for existing sources is October 11, 2019, with the exception of the first periodic performance test, which must be conducted by October 13, 2020, and the date to submit performance test data through CEDRI, which is within 60 days of completing the test. Facilities must comply with the changes set out in this final rule no later than 2 years after the effective date of the final rule. Section 112(i)(3) of the CAA provides that, for a standard or other regulation promulgated under CAA section 112, the Administrator shall establish a compliance date no later than 3 years after the effective date of the standard, except where otherwise provided. We conclude that 2 years are necessary to make the system adjustments needed to demonstrate compliance with the revised requirements, including adjusting data acquisition systems (DAS) to include startup and shutdown periods and the revised opacity monitoring allowances, to transition to electronic excess emissions reporting, and to comply with revised monitoring requirements.
As noted in section IV.F of this preamble, the initial compliance date for electronic excess emissions reporting will be 1 year after the excess emissions reporting form (
New sources must comply with all of the standards by October 11, 2017, or upon startup, whichever is later.
The EPA is requiring owners and operators of pulp and paper production facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the CEDRI. The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public.
The EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, is easily accessible and provides a user-friendly interface. By making the records, data, and reports addressed in this rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated community, and the public will benefit when the EPA conducts future CAA-required technology reviews. As a result of having reports readily accessible, our ability to carry out timely comprehensive reviews will be increased.
We anticipate that fewer or less substantial ICRs in conjunction with prospective CAA-required technology reviews may be needed, which results in a decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack test data electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to
State, local, and tribal air agencies, as well as the EPA, can benefit from more streamlined and automated review of the electronically submitted data. Standardizing report formats allows air agencies to review reports and data more quickly. Having reports and associated data in electronic format will facilitate review through the use of software “search” options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. Additionally, air agencies and the EPA can access reports wherever and whenever they want or need, as long as they have access to the Internet. The ability to access and review air emission report information electronically will assist air agencies to more quickly and accurately determine compliance with the applicable regulations, potentially allowing a faster response to violations which could minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits both air agencies and the general public.
For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting required by this rule, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal (81 FR 97079-81). In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development, and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with performance test data will save industry, air agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality of emission inventories and air quality regulations and enhancing the public's access to this important information.
For each action, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing, the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. A thorough discussion of all comments received on the proposed rulemaking and EPA's corresponding responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).
The multi-pathway screening analysis, based on actual emissions, indicates the excess cancer risk from this source category is less than 10-in-1 million, based on dioxins/furans and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions, with PAH emissions accounting for 99 percent of these potential risks from the fisher and the farmer scenarios considered for multi-pathway modeling. There were no facilities within this source category with a final multi-pathway non-cancer screen value greater than 1 for cadmium or mercury.
To put the risks from the source category in context, we also evaluated facility-wide risk. Our facility-wide risk assessment, based on actual emissions, estimated the MIR to be 20-in-1 million driven by arsenic and chromium VI emissions, and estimated the chronic non-cancer TOSHI value to be 1, driven by emissions of acrolein. We estimated approximately 440,000 people to have cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million considering facility-wide emissions from the pulp and paper production source category (see Table 2). The facility-wide cancer and non-cancer risks are driven by emissions from industrial boilers, representing 62 percent of the cancer risks and 95 percent of the non-cancer risks. Emissions from 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM sources represent only 6 percent of the total facility-wide cancer risk of 20-in-1 million.
The screening assessment of worst-case acute inhalation impacts indicates no pollutants exceeding a hazard quotient (HQ) value of 1 based on the reference exposure level (REL), with an estimated worst-case maximum acute HQ of 0.3 for acrolein based on the 1-hour REL.
A review of the uncertainties in the risk assessment identified one additional key consideration, and that is the quality of data associated with the facility-wide emissions. The data provided from the power boilers (
We weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, and we proposed that the residual risks from this source category are acceptable. We then considered whether the NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and whether more stringent standards were necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect by taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors. In determining whether the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we examined the same risk factors that we investigated for our acceptability determination and also considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with emissions from the source category. As noted in the discussion of the ample margin of safety analysis in the preamble to the proposed rule (81 FR 97069-70), we considered options for further reducing gaseous organic HAP emissions from recovery furnace systems. We considered the reduction in HAP emissions that could be achieved by converting or replacing direct contact evaporator (DCE) recovery furnaces (which include BLO systems) with NDCE recovery furnaces. We also considered conversion of wet ESP systems to dry ESP systems for NDCE recovery furnaces. The overall cost of these options is an estimated $1.4 billion to $3.7 billion in capital cost and $120 million to $440 million in annualized cost. Application of these options would achieve an estimated emission reduction of 2,920 tpy of gaseous organic HAPs (including risk drivers and other gaseous organic HAPs), with a corresponding cost effectiveness of $45,000 to $153,000 per ton of emissions reduced. Due to the low level of current risk and the costs associated with these options, we proposed that additional HAP emission reductions from the source category are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. Based on the results of our environmental risk screening assessment,
We evaluated all of the comments on EPA's risk review and determined that no changes to the review are needed. A summary of these comments and our responses is located in the comment summary and response document, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).
For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM source category are acceptable, and the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety or adverse environmental effects have changed. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our residual risk review as proposed.
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the emission sources in the source category. The following paragraphs discuss what we proposed pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), changes to the technology review since proposal, the key comments we received on the technology review and our responses, and the rationale for our final approach for the technology review. For an in-depth account of the comments and responses, see the comment summary and response document in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).
Multiple commenters concurred with the EPA that the results of the technology review supported the conclusion that there should be no changes to the emissions standards. One commenter objected and argued that the current MACT standards for HAP metals from recovery furnaces, SDTs, lime kilns, and sulfite combustion units did not meet the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) when originally promulgated. The commenter stated that each of the emissions standards must receive a proper CAA section 112(d)(6) review to evaluate whether there is an emissions standard in place that met the CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) test. According to the commenter, the EPA must set emissions standards on each of these emission units to satisfy the CAA, by establishing a proper floor for the first time, and performing a beyond-the-floor analysis. The commenter argued that the EPA is not authorized by CAA section 112(d)(6) to leave in place errors made when performing the originally-required MACT rulemaking under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3).
In addition to commenting on the current 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM standards, commenters offered opposing opinions regarding whether the EPA should have expanded the scope of sources and/or pollutants covered by subpart MM as part of the technology review. One commenter argued that the EPA has no obligation to expand the scope of the existing standards, and does not in fact have statutory authority to do so. The commenter stated that there is neither legal nor technical justification for considering limitations for new pollutants or for new sources as part of the CAA section 112(d)(6) review of the subpart MM standards. The commenter also stated that the EPA's residual risk review, which included the major processes and pollutants, did not
Another commenter argued that the EPA must set emissions standards for all emitted HAPs from all emission units. The commenter stated that, currently, there are uncontrolled HAPs emitted by pulp mills, including mercury, dioxins/furans, and hydrochloric acid. The commenter also stated that the gaseous organic HAPs emitted from existing recovery furnaces and from new and existing lime kilns and SDTs have no applicable emission limit. The commenter also noted that the EPA failed to set any standard for HAP metals emissions from new and existing chemical recovery combustion units at stand-alone semichemical pulp mills. The commenter indicated that the CAA section 112(d)(6) review has brought the problem of currently unregulated HAPs to the EPA's attention, and it is now “necessary” under CAA section 112(d)(6) to set emissions standards that control these pollutants, as the CAA directs. The commenter also asserted that, under CAA section 112(d)(6), the D.C. Circuit Court legal decisions governing the EPA's regulatory responsibility are “developments” that define proper pollution controls, practices, and technologies, and the EPA is legally required to account for them and set standards to limit these pollutants in the review rulemaking.
Regarding our review of the current 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM standards, we disagree with the commenter that implied the EPA must recalculate or reanalyze the validity of MACT floors previously established under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) as part of the technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6). As explained in prior RTR rulemakings, the EPA does not read CAA section 112(d)(6) as requiring a reanalysis or recalculation of MACT floors.
Regarding the scope of the subpart MM technology review, the EPA acknowledges that standards for certain combinations of pollutants and processes in the subpart MM source category have not been promulgated according to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). We agree that the EPA does not have any obligation to expand the scope of the existing standards under CAA section 112(d)(6), and we do not look to CAA section 112(d)(6) for authority to set additional standards within a source category. The authority to set additional standards within a source category comes from CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). Though the EPA has discretion to develop standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for previously unregulated pollutants at the same time as the Agency completes the CAA section 112(d)(6) review, nothing in CAA section 112(d)(6) expressly requires the EPA to do so as part of that review. The compressed schedule for this rulemaking, due to the court-ordered deadline, did not make it reasonable to appropriately evaluate new standards for unregulated pollutants and processes. This issue is discussed further in the comment summary and response document that is available in the docket. The EPA is not taking any action at this time with respect to the unregulated pollutants or processes, though the EPA might choose to do so in the future after assembling the data and information needed to conduct the CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) analyses.
• There had been a development in existing recovery furnace operating practices that supported reducing the existing source opacity limit from 35 percent to 20 percent and revising the monitoring allowance for the 20 percent opacity limit from 6 percent to a 2 percent monitoring allowance as part of the subpart MM technology review process; and
• There had been a development in existing lime kiln operating practices that supported revising the monitoring allowance from 6 percent to a 1 percent monitoring allowance for opacity as part of the subpart MM technology review process.
The estimated cost effectiveness of the proposed recovery furnace option, $36,800 per ton PM, was within the range of other recent EPA regulations. There was no cost-effectiveness value for the proposed lime kiln option because there were no estimated incremental HAP reductions (81 FR 97072-73).
Multiple commenters objected to the proposed changes to the opacity requirements for recovery furnaces and lime kilns, questioning the cost effectiveness and stating that the technology review should not result in changing the opacity requirements. The commenters argued that the EPA's assumption for “improving maintenance” to reduce the number of exceedances of the recovery furnace and lime kiln opacity limits was incorrect,
Commenters also stated that examination of only 1 year of COMS data for 2009 from the 2011 pulp and paper ICR was not adequate to fully determine the impacts of the proposed change or to demonstrate that there has been a change in operating practice. Commenters further stated that the COMS data for recovery furnaces and lime kilns that the EPA used in its analysis did not include periods of startup and shutdown in all instances, and that the EPA's analysis of existing performance relative to the proposed opacity limits and monitoring allowances was, therefore, incomplete. The EPA acknowledges that 2009 data may not be representative of current operation, as suggested by the commenters, and that the number of startup and shutdown events likely vary from year to year. Considering this information and the analyses performed for the final action,
Multiple commenters stated that the ESP total power monitoring provisions should be removed or revised. Instead of adding an additional monitoring requirement that they believed would be burdensome and duplicative of the opacity monitoring already being conducted, commenters suggested that the EPA should instead require proper operation of the ESP's AVC or power management system, which would achieve the same goal of ensuring the ESP performance. Commenters provided information suggesting that we underestimated the ESP parameter monitoring costs, specifically that EPA incorrectly assumed that all ESPs were equipped with the ability to record the parameters. Based on our review of this cost information, we conducted a reanalysis and estimated revised costs of $16 million in capital costs and $4 million in annualized costs associated with adding ESP parameter monitoring for existing sources.
Given that the intent of the proposed additional ESP monitoring was to ensure efficient operation and proper maintenance of the ESP, see 81 FR 97073 (December 30, 2016), and that commenters suggested that the use of the AVC ensures efficient operation and notifies operators of issues requiring maintenance, and that the costs were significantly higher than EPA estimated at proposal, we are not finalizing the proposed ESP parameter monitoring requirements. The EPA is instead finalizing a requirement for recovery furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESPs to maintain proper operation of the ESP's AVC. This requirement applies at all times, including times when the opacity monitoring allowance is used. Because existing ESPs already have AVC, there is no need to estimate equipment cost. We have only estimated recordkeeping costs for this requirement.
We received several comments on our proposal to remove exemptions for SSM events. See the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741) for public comments and our responses relating to our proposal to remove the SSM exemption from 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM. An overview of our rationale for removing this exemption is provided below.
In its 2008 decision in
We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with
In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not established alternate emissions standards for those periods.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2) (definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in
As the D.C. Circuit recognized in
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emissions standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations.
We are also revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and include a “no” in column 3. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.860(d).
We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h) by re-designating this section as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and including a “no” in column 3. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in
We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a “no” in column 3. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA is adding to the rule at 40 CFR 63.864(f) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: “The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under 40 CFR 63.8(d)(2).”
We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a “no” in column 3. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is adding such requirements to 40 CFR 63.866(d). The regulatory text we are adding differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is applying the requirement to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the “occurrence.” The EPA is also adding to 40 CFR 63.866(d) a requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit the source failed to meet, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods could include mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is requiring that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a “no” in column 3. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.866(d).
We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) and including a “no” in column 3. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a “no” in column 3. The EPA is promulgating that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer applies. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is eliminating this requirement because SSM plans will no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans will no longer be required. The final amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and include a “no” in column 3. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not
Multiple commenters expressed concern about the proposed requirement for facilities to conduct periodic tests “before renewing their 40 CFR part 70 operating permit,” arguing that the phrase was confusing and unnecessary, and they recommended that the wording linking periodic testing to permit renewal should be struck. We have reviewed these comments and agree that tying the timing for periodic testing to title V permit renewal could be considered confusing and could unnecessarily complicate the rule. Therefore, we are finalizing (as proposed) the requirement to conduct the first of the periodic tests within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards and, thereafter, no longer than 5 years following the previous test, without reference to permit renewal. For more information, see the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).
A commenter objected to the proposed language, stating that, depending on what “conditions” the Administrator specifies, it may be impossible to conduct performance testing in the time frame required, while simultaneously meeting all the conditions the Administrator or their designee may specify. The commenter suggested that the rule should simply require that performance tests be conducted under normal operating conditions. We agree that the proposed rule language needs clarification and have revised the language for the final rule to refer to “normal operating conditions” and eliminate the phrase “such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator.”
We proposed specific changes regarding the establishment and enforcement of CPMS operating limits. A discussion of the proposed changes, the public comments received, and the changes made for promulgation is provided in the following paragraphs and presented in greater detail in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).
Multiple commenters objected to the proposed provisions in 40 CFR 63.864(j) that specify how operating parameter limits are established. The commenters argued that use of the test average conflicts with the language in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM that allows the operating parameter limits to be expanded based on additional test data and limits the flexibility facilities need to establish an operating limit that allows for the full range of process operation. Commenters argued that the proposed methodology also conflicts with recent MACT rules such as the Boiler MACT rule (subpart DDDDD) that allows use of the lowest or highest individual test run to be used. Commenters concluded that flexibility in use of the hourly average value obtained during a test run and not the test average is important to establishing operating parameter limits that allow for a compliance demonstration at operating conditions below full load. Commenters stated that the ability to confirm the established operating limit during subsequent testing is another important element of flexibility needed in subpart MM. Commenters also recommended that subpart MM should allow operating parameter limits to be adjusted to a level that is 90 percent of the value during the test to allow for operational flexibility.
In response to these comments, we have revised the rule from proposal to allow minimum operating parameter limits to be established based on the lowest 1-hour average value recorded during a performance test that demonstrates compliance. We have also revised the rule from proposal to allow facilities to confirm the established operating limits during subsequent testing instead of requiring the operating limits to be reestablished during each repeat test. With these added flexibilities, in addition to provisions included in 40 CFR 63.864(k) that specify corrective actions before an operating parameter violation is incurred, we did not include the commenter's suggested 90 percent adjustment for minimum operating parameter limits. Facilities may establish a range of parameter values by conducting multiple performance tests.
In response to these comments, we are not taking any final action to eliminate or in any way revise 40 CFR 63.864(k)(3). We recognize that one event could trigger multiple 3-hour exceedances in a 24-hour period, especially for facilities using a 3-hour rolling average. As originally promulgated, 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM did not specify whether 3-hours averages were to be reduced to 3-hour block or 3-hour rolling averages. As a result, commenters brought to our attention that some facilities are currently using block averages, while others are using rolling averages. Keeping in place the current provision in 40 CFR 63.864(k)(3) that no more than one exceedance will be attributed in any given 24-hour period avoids creating a difference in the compliance obligation between the two monitoring approaches.
We proposed specific changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Major public comments on the proposed amendments to these requirements and the EPA's responses are discussed in the paragraphs below and presented in greater detail in the comment summary and response document, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).
We proposed that owners and operators of 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM facilities submit performance test reports, semiannual reports, and notifications through CEDRI. The EPA believes that the electronic submittal of these reports will increase the usefulness of the data contained in the reports, is consistent with current trends in data availability, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community (81 FR 97079).
Multiple commenters stated that the EPA's proposed new electronic reporting requirement in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM will be excessively burdensome to industry and is not justified. We disagree with these comments. Based on the analysis performed for the proposed Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the New Source Performance Standards (
One commenter noted that the EPA's ERT, which is used to generate the test data files uploaded to the EPA's CDX through CEDRI, continues to be revised and updated due to various flaws. The commenter argued that it is unreasonable to put sources at risk of violations (due to late or inaccurate reporting) because of EPA reporting tool issues or availability. At a minimum, the commenter suggested that the requirement to use a particular CEDRI form should stipulate that the form has been available for 1 year, per the recently signed final, but not published NSPS electronic reporting rule. According to the commenter, that rule also provides for a reporting extension in the event of an outage of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI the week prior to a report's due date. The commenter suggested that this same allowance should be provided in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM if the electronic reporting requirement is finalized.
We agree that it is unreasonable to put sources at risk of violations because of EPA reporting tool issues or availability. Based on commenter input and our consideration of the tasks that facilities must conduct prior to initial compliance, we have determined 1 year from the posting of the reporting form (
While we do agree that more time is necessary to comply with electronic reporting requirements for semiannual reports, we do not agree that more time is necessary to comply with electronic reporting requirements for performance test reports and performance evaluation reports, which are uploads of ERT files. The allotted 60 days should be ample time to determine whether reports using the ERT need to be uploaded to the CDX through CEDRI. We also disagree that the ERT continues to be revised and updated due to various flaws. We acknowledge that, in early versions of the ERT, there were some issues, particularly related to rounding results. However, we have diligently worked to address issues as they have been brought to our attention. We have also added many improvements to the ERT based on feedback from users. We are finalizing the requirement to submit reports electronically to the EPA through CEDRI.
If the requirement for using CEDRI for electronic reporting remains in the final rule, commenters stated they would prefer filling and uploading the spreadsheet to fulfill the reporting requirements rather than entering the required information into a fillable CEDRI web form and increasing the chances of transcription errors, if they must choose between approaches. However, the commenters indicated their ultimate preference would be for facilities to upload their own already-formatted reports generated from their DAS, rather than reformatting the current information to fit the EPA's reporting form.
We acknowledge the commenter's support for the use of the spreadsheet style form for fulfilling reporting requirements. We intend to solely use the spreadsheet-style form for this rule in lieu of a fillable web form or extensible markup language (XML) submittal. Commenters provided a variety of detailed comments on the semiannual compliance reporting spreadsheet for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, which have resulted in a number of changes to the spreadsheet reporting form (template) for the final rule. For more information, see the comment summary and response document, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).
As another burden-reducing measure, we have reduced the number of notifications proposed to be uploaded into CEDRI. As proposed, an electronic copy of all notifications required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM would have been required to be uploaded into CEDRI. Subpart MM requires numerous notifications listed in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as specified in Table 1 of subpart MM. For example, facilities are required to notify their delegated authority prior to conducting or rescheduling performance tests, as well as in the event of a CMS performance evaluation. Considering comments on electronic reporting in general, and after reviewing the number of notifications, we revised the final rule to only require upload of initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b), notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), and the report of PM emission limits required in 40 CFR 63.867(b) to be included in a notification of compliance status. This change focuses CEDRI-reporting of notifications for subpart MM on key (non-routine) notifications that will be the most informative in conjunction with electronically submitted emissions test reports and semiannual reports. Any of these notifications required after 2 years following the effective date of the final rule would be required to be uploaded into CEDRI in a user-specified file format. No specific form is being designed for subpart MM notifications at this time.
The EPA's intent with the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.867(c)(1) and (3) was to include the relevant language from 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of the General
Section 63.10(e)(3)(v) continues to apply and is not being replaced with language in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM. This section specifies the delivery date for the report (
In addition, we are not finalizing the proposed requirement in 40 CFR 63.867(c)(3)(iii)(A)(2) to include in the detailed excess emissions report the number of 6-minute opacity averages removed due to invalid readings, to address a comment that including this provision could imply that invalid opacity averages are periods of excess emissions. The CMS performance summary portion of the summary and detail reports provide sufficient information on the duration of invalid readings.
We proposed to revise the recordkeeping requirements section in 40 CFR 63.866(d)(2) to require that sources record information on failures to meet the applicable standard (81 FR 97081). We further proposed in 40 CFR 63.867(c)(4) to require reporting of this information in the excess emissions report along with an estimate of emissions associated with the failure. Multiple commenters objected to the proposed requirement that would have required an emissions estimate in association with opacity or parameter operating limits. The commenters argued that attempting to quantify emissions that may theoretically result from a violation of monitoring requirements would be extremely burdensome, impracticable, and would result in over-reporting and inaccurate emissions estimates. The commenters stated that, with a large margin of compliance, a monitoring violation may not actually result in emissions in excess of the applicable emission limit. They recommended that this proposed language be revised.
In response to this comment, we have revised the language in the final rulemaking to require emissions estimates to be provided in the semiannual report only for failures to meet “emission limits,” such as the PM (HAP metal), methanol, or THC limits contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM. Failures to meet emission limits are likely to be discovered during periodic emissions tests, which provide a quantitative means for estimating emissions. Failures also include violations of opacity and parameter operating limits as specified in § 63.864(k)(2), which are required to be reported with the corresponding number of failures, and the date, time, and duration of each failure in the semiannual report. The final rule does not require reporting of an emissions estimate associated with failure to meet an opacity or parameter operating limit, but does require facilities to maintain sufficient information to provide an emissions estimate if such an estimate was requested by the Administrator.
The EPA is finalizing as proposed (81 FR 97081) several technical and editorial corrections on which we received no public comments, including:
• Revisions throughout 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM to clarify the location in 40 CFR part 60 of applicable EPA test methods;
• Revisions throughout 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM to update the facility name for Cosmo Specialty Fibers;
• Revisions to the definitions section in 40 CFR 63.861 to:
○ Remove the definition for “black liquor gasification” and remove reference to black liquor gasification in the definitions for “kraft recovery furnace,” “recovery furnace,” “semichemical combustion unit,” and “soda recovery furnace”;
○ Remove the SSM exemption from the definition for “modification”;
○ Clarify that the definition for “particulate matter (PM)” refers to filterable PM;
○ Remove reference to use of one-half of the method detection limit for non-detect Method 29 measurements within the definition of “hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals”;
○ Change the definition for “smelt dissolving tanks (SDT)” to refer to the singular “smelt dissolving tank (SDT)” to be consistent with the use of the term in the rule; and
○ Remove the definition for “startup” that pertains to the former black liquor gasification system at Georgia-Pacific's facility in Big Island, Virginia.
• Correction of a misspelling in 40 CFR 63.862(c).
• Revisions to multiple sections (40 CFR 63.863, 63.866, and 63.867) to remove reference to the former smelters and former black liquor gasification system at Georgia-Pacific's facility in Big Island, Virginia.
• Revisions to the monitoring requirements section in 40 CFR 63.864 to add reference to Performance Specification 1 (PS-1) in COMS monitoring provisions and add incorporation by reference (IBR) for bag leak detection systems.
• Revisions to the performance test requirements section in 40 CFR 63.865 to change the ambient oxygen concentration in Equations 7 and 8 from 21 percent to 20.9 percent to make subpart MM consistent with the rest of the NESHAPs.
• Revision to the terminology in the delegation of authority section in 40 CFR 63.868 to match the definitions in 40 CFR 63.90.
• Revisions to the General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to subpart MM of part 63) to align with those sections of the General Provisions that have been amended or reserved over time.
There are currently 107 major source pulp and paper mills operating in the U.S. that conduct chemical recovery combustion operations, including 97 kraft pulp mills, 1 soda pulp mill, 3 sulfite pulp mills, and 6 stand-alone semichemical pulp mills. The existing affected source regulated at kraft or soda pulp mills is each existing chemical recovery system, defined as all existing DCE and NDCE recovery furnaces, SDTs, and lime kilns. A DCE recovery furnace system is defined to include the DCE recovery furnace and BLO system
At the current level of control, emissions of HAPs (HAP metals, acid gases, and gaseous organic HAPs) are approximately 11,600 tpy. Current emissions of PM (a surrogate pollutant for HAP metals) and total reduced sulfur compounds (emitted by the same mechanism as gaseous organic HAP) are approximately 23,200 tpy and 3,600 tpy, respectively.
The final amendments require all 107 mills subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM to conduct periodic testing for their chemical recovery combustion operations; 96 mills with recovery furnaces or lime kilns equipped with ESP controls to meet more stringent opacity monitoring allowances and comply with a requirement to maintain proper operation of the ESP's AVC; and all 107 mills to operate without the SSM exemption. The EPA estimates that the final changes to the opacity monitoring allowances will result in no emissions reductions. We were unable to quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with periodic emissions testing or eliminating the SSM exemption, and we expect no emissions reductions with the aforementioned ESP requirement. Periodic testing will help facilities understand the emissions from and performance of their processes and control systems, and will help to identify potential issues that may otherwise go unnoticed, and thus, providing benefit to both the facilities and to surrounding populations. Eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable standards at all times.
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control devices (
For further information on these impacts, see the memorandum titled,
Costs associated with elimination of the startup and shutdown exemption were estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems. Costs to transition to electronic excess emissions reporting and adjust existing record systems for the revised opacity monitoring allowances were also estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs. Costs associated with periodic testing were estimated for the 73 mills that do not already conduct periodic testing and include the costs for EPA Method 5 filterable PM testing for kraft and soda recovery furnaces, lime kilns, and SDTs and sulfite combustion units; EPA Method 308 methanol testing for new kraft and soda recovery furnaces; and EPA Method 25A THC testing for semichemical combustion units. Costs associated with the requirement to maintain proper operation of ESP AVC were estimated for the 96 mills with ESP-controlled recovery furnaces and lime kilns and include only recordkeeping costs, since existing ESPs are already expected to have these systems. The EPA estimates the nationwide capital costs associated with these new requirements to be $3.8 million and the nationwide annual costs to be $0.97 million to $1.0 million per year at 3 percent and 7 percent interest rates, respectively.
For further information on these costs, see the memorandum titled,
The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For the final rule, the EPA performed a partial-equilibrium analysis of national pulp and paper product markets to estimate potential paper product market impacts, as well as consumer and producer welfare impacts of the regulatory options.
Across regulatory options, the EPA estimates market-level changes in the paper and paperboard markets to be insignificant. For the final rule, the EPA predicts national-level weighted average paper and paperboard prices to increase about 0.01 percent, while total production levels decrease less than 0.01 percent on average.
In addition, the EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on small businesses by comparing estimated annualized engineering compliance costs at the firm-level to firm sales. The screening analysis found that the ratio of compliance cost to firm revenue falls below 1 percent for the three small companies likely to be affected by the final rule. For small firms, the minimum and maximum cost-to-sales ratios are less than 1 percent.
More information and details of this analysis are provided in the technical document, titled
We do not estimate any significant reductions in HAP emissions as a result of these final amendments. However, the amendments will help to improve the clarity of the rule, which will improve compliance and, therefore, minimize emissions. Certain provisions also provide operational flexibility with no increase in HAP emissions.
We examined the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category by performing a demographic analysis of the population close to the facilities. In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and non-cancer risks from the subpart MM source category across different social, demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near facilities identified as having the highest risks. The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses are included in a technical report,
The results of the subpart MM source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 7,600 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and do not expose any person to a chronic non-cancer TOSHI greater than 1. The specific demographic results indicate that the percentage of the population potentially impacted by emissions is greater than its corresponding national percentage for the minority population (33 percent for the source category compared to 28 percent nationwide), the African American population (28 percent for the source category compared to 13 percent nationwide) and for the population over age 25 without a high school diploma (18 percent for the source category compared to 15 percent nationwide). The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the population percentages for certain demographic categories within 5 km of source category emissions are greater than the corresponding national percentage for those same demographics. The following demographic percentages for populations residing within close proximity to facilities with chemical recovery combustion sources are higher than the corresponding nationwide percentage: African American, ages 65 and up, over age 25 without a high school diploma, and below the poverty level.
The risks due to HAP emissions from this source category are low for all populations (
Therefore, we conclude that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. However, this final rule will provide additional benefits to these demographic groups by improving the compliance, monitoring, and implementation of the NESHAP.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The results of the subpart MM source category demographic analysis
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1805.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741), and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, which are essential in determining compliance and mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
We are finalizing changes to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM paperwork requirements in the form of eliminating the SSM reporting and SSM plan requirements, adding periodic emissions testing for selected process equipment, revising opacity monitoring allowances, adding a recordkeeping requirement for recovery furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESPs, reducing the frequency of all excess emissions reports to semiannual, and requiring electronic submittal of all performance test reports and semiannual reports.
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 OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The EPA estimates that all affected small entities will have annualized costs of less than 1 percent of their sales. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities. For more information on the small entity impacts associated with this rule, please refer to the
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. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule imposes requirements on owners and operators of kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills and not tribal governments. The EPA does not know of any pulp mills owned or operated by Indian tribal governments, or located within tribal lands. However, if there are any, the effect of this rule on communities of tribal governments would not be unique or disproportionate to the effect on other communities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in section IV.A of this preamble and further documented in the risk report titled,
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action involves technical standards. While the EPA identified ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), “Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)” as being potentially applicable, the Agency decided not to use it. The use of this voluntary consensus standard would be impractical because this standard is only acceptable as an alternative to the portion of EPA Method 29 for mercury, and emissions testing for mercury alone is not required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM.
The EPA is incorporating into 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM the following guidance document: EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997. This guidance document provides procedures for selecting, installing, setting up, adjusting, and operating a bag leak detection system; and also includes QA procedures. This guidance document is readily accessible at
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.F of this preamble and the technical report titled,
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Pulp and paper mills, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(m) * * *
(3) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997,
(b) * * *
(5) Each new or existing sulfite combustion unit located at a sulfite pulp mill, except such existing units at Cosmo Specialty Fibers' Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission Unit no. AP-10).
(7) The requirements of the alternative standard in § 63.862(d) apply to the hog fuel dryer at Cosmo Specialty Fibers' Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission Unit no. HD-14).
(d) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
The revisions read as follows:
(c)
(d)
(a) The owner or operator of an existing affected source or process unit must comply with the requirements in
(c) The owner or operator of an existing source or process unit must comply with the revised requirements published on October 11, 2017 no later than October 11, 2019, with the exception of the following:
(1) The first of the 5-year periodic performance tests must be conducted by October 13, 2020, and thereafter within 5 years following the previous performance test; and
(2) The date to submit performance test data through the CEDRI is within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(d)
(4) As specified in § 63.8(g)(2), each 6-minute COMS data average must be calculated as the average of 36 or more data points, equally spaced over each 6-minute period.
(e) * * *
(1) For any kraft or soda recovery furnace or lime kiln using an ESP emission control device, the owner or operator must maintain proper operation of the ESP's automatic voltage control (AVC).
(2) For any kraft or soda recovery furnace or lime kiln using an ESP followed by a wet scrubber, the owner or operator must follow the parameter monitoring requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (10) of this section. The opacity monitoring system specified in paragraph (d) of this section is not required for combination ESP/wet scrubber control device systems.
(10) * * *
(i) A monitoring device used for the continuous measurement of the pressure drop of the gas stream across the scrubber must be certified by the manufacturer to be accurate to within a gage pressure of ±500 pascals (±2 inches of water gage pressure); and
(ii) A monitoring device used for continuous measurement of the scrubbing liquid flow rate must be certified by the manufacturer to be accurate within ±5 percent of the design scrubbing liquid flow rate.
(iii) As an alternative to pressure drop measurement under paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, a monitoring device for measurement of fan amperage may be used for smelt dissolving tank dynamic scrubbers that operate at ambient pressure or for low-energy entrainment scrubbers where the fan speed does not vary.
(12) The owner or operator of the affected hog fuel dryer at Cosmo Specialty Fibers' Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission Unit no. HD-14) must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(12)(i) through (xi) of this section for each bag leak detection system.
(i) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate each triboelectric bag leak detection system according to EPA-454/R-98-015, “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance” (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14). The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate other types of bag leak detection systems in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations.
(ix) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance” (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14).
(x) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as detailed in the site-specific monitoring plan. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection which demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14). Record each adjustment.
(13) The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit that uses an ESP, wet scrubber, RTO, or fabric filter may monitor alternative control device operating parameters subject to prior written approval by the Administrator. The request for approval must also include the manner in which the parameter operating limit is to be set.
(14) The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit that uses an air pollution control system other than an ESP, wet scrubber, RTO, or fabric filter must provide to the Administrator an alternative monitoring request that includes a description of the control device, test results verifying the performance of the control device, the appropriate operating parameters that will be monitored, how the operating limit is to be set, and the frequency of measuring and recording to establish continuous compliance with the standards. The alternative monitoring request is subject to the Administrator's approval. The owner or operator of the affected source or process unit must install, calibrate, operate, and maintain the monitor(s) in accordance with the alternative monitoring request approved by the Administrator. The owner or operator must include in the information submitted to the Administrator proposed performance specifications and quality assurance procedures for the monitors. The Administrator may request further information and will approve acceptable test methods and procedures. The owner or operator must monitor the parameters as approved by the Administrator using the methods and procedures in the alternative monitoring request.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(j)
(2) The owner or operator may base operating limits on values recorded during previous performance tests or conduct additional performance tests for the specific purpose of establishing operating limits, provided that data used to establish the operating limits are or have been obtained during testing that used the test methods and procedures required in this subpart. The owner or operator of the affected source or process unit must certify that all control techniques and processes have not been modified subsequent to the testing upon which the data used to establish the operating parameter limits were obtained.
(3) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit may establish expanded or replacement operating limits for the monitoring parameters listed in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) and (e)(10) through (14) of this section and established in paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this section during subsequent performance tests using the test methods in § 63.865.
(4) The owner or operator of the affected source or process unit must continuously monitor each parameter and determine the arithmetic average value of each parameter during each performance test run. Multiple performance tests may be conducted to establish a range of parameter values. Operating outside a previously established parameter limit during a performance test to expand the operating limit range does not constitute a monitoring exceedance. Operating limits must be confirmed or reestablished during performance tests.
(5) New, expanded, or replacement operating limits for the monitoring parameter values listed in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) and (e)(10) through (14) of this section should be determined as described in paragraphs (j)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit that uses a wet scrubber must set a minimum scrubber pressure drop operating limit as the lowest of the 1-hour average pressure drop values associated with each test run demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.862.
(A) For a smelt dissolving tank dynamic wet scrubber operating at ambient pressure or for low-energy entrainment scrubbers where fan speed does not vary, the minimum fan amperage operating limit must be set as the lowest of the 1-hour average fan amperage values associated with each test run demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.862.
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) The owner operator of an affected source equipped with an RTO must set the minimum operating temperature of the RTO as the lowest of the 1-hour average temperature values associated with each test run demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.862.
(k)
(i) For a new or existing kraft or soda recovery furnace or lime kiln equipped with an ESP, when the average of ten consecutive 6-minute averages result in a measurement greater than 20 percent opacity;
(ii) For a new or existing kraft or soda recovery furnace, kraft or soda smelt dissolving tank, kraft or soda lime kiln, or sulfite combustion unit equipped with a wet scrubber, when any 3-hour average parameter value is below the minimum operating limit established in paragraph (j) of this section, with the exception of pressure drop during periods of startup and shutdown;
(iii) For a new or existing kraft or soda recovery furnace or lime kiln equipped with an ESP followed by a wet scrubber, when any 3-hour average scrubber parameter value is below the minimum operating limit established in paragraph (j) of this section, with the exception of pressure drop during periods of startup and shutdown;
(iv) For a new or existing semichemical combustion unit equipped with an RTO, when any 1-hour average temperature falls below the minimum temperature operating limit established in paragraph (j) of this section;
(v) For the hog fuel dryer at Cosmo Specialty Fibers' Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission Unit no. HD-14), when the bag leak detection system alarm sounds;
(vi) For an affected source or process unit equipped with an ESP, wet scrubber, RTO, or fabric filter and monitoring alternative operating parameters established in paragraph (e)(13) of this section, when any 3-hour average value does not meet the operating limit established in paragraph (j) of this section; and
(vii) For an affected source or process unit equipped with an alternative air pollution control system and monitoring operating parameters approved by the Administrator as established in paragraph (e)(14) of this section, when any 3-hour average value does not meet the operating limit established in paragraph (j) of this section.
(2) Following the compliance date, owners or operators of all affected sources or process units are in violation of the standards of § 63.862 if the monitoring exceedances in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (ix) of this section occur during times when spent pulping liquor or lime mud is fed (as applicable):
(i) For an existing kraft or soda recovery furnace equipped with an ESP, when opacity is greater than 35 percent for 2 percent or more of the operating time within any semiannual period;
(ii) For a new kraft or soda recovery furnace equipped with an ESP, when opacity is greater than 20 percent for 2 percent or more of the operating time within any semiannual period;
(iii) For a new or existing kraft or soda lime kiln equipped with an ESP, when opacity is greater than 20 percent for 3 percent or more of the operating time within any semiannual period;
(iv) For a new or existing kraft or soda recovery furnace, kraft or soda smelt dissolving tank, kraft or soda lime kiln, or sulfite combustion unit equipped with a wet scrubber, when six or more 3-hour average parameter values within any 6-month reporting period are below the minimum operating limits established in paragraph (j) of this section, with the exception of pressure drop during periods of startup and shutdown;
(v) For a new or existing kraft or soda recovery furnace or lime kiln equipped with an ESP followed by a wet scrubber, when six or more 3-hour average scrubber parameter values within any 6-month reporting period are outside the range of values established in paragraph (j) of this section, with the exception of pressure drop during periods of startup and shutdown;
(vi) For a new or existing semichemical combustion unit equipped with an RTO, when any 3-hour average temperature falls below the temperature established in paragraph (j) of this section;
(vii) For the hog fuel dryer at Cosmo Specialty Fibers' Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission Unit no. HD-14), when corrective action is not initiated within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and the alarm is engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating the operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if corrective action is not initiated within 1 hour, the alarm time is counted as the actual amount of time taken to initiate corrective action;
(viii) For an affected source or process unit equipped with an ESP, wet scrubber, RTO, or fabric filter and monitoring alternative operating parameters established in paragraph (e)(13) of this section, when six or more 3-hour average values within any 6-month reporting period do not meet the operating limits established in paragraph (j) of this section; and
(ix) For an affected source or process unit equipped with an alternative air pollution control system and monitoring operating parameters approved by the Administrator as established in paragraph (e)(14) of this section, when six or more 3-hour average values within any 6-month reporting period do not meet the operating limits established in paragraph (j) of this section.
(3) For purposes of determining the number of nonopacity monitoring exceedances, no more than one exceedance will be attributed in any given 24-hour period.
The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit subject to the requirements of this subpart is required to conduct an initial performance test and periodic performance tests using the test methods and procedures listed in § 63.7 and paragraph (b) of this section. The owner or operator must conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards and thereafter within 5 years following the previous performance test. Performance tests shall be conducted based on representative performance (
(b) * * *
(1) For purposes of determining the concentration or mass of PM emitted from each kraft or soda recovery furnace, sulfite combustion unit, smelt dissolving tank, lime kiln, or the hog fuel dryer at Cosmo Specialty Fibers' Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission Unit no. HD-14), Method 5 in appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 or Method 29 in appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60 must be used, except that Method 17 in appendix A-6 of 40 CFR part 60 may be used in lieu of Method 5 or Method 29 if a constant value of 0.009 g/dscm (0.004 gr/dscf) is added to the results of Method 17, and the stack temperature is no greater than 205 °C (400 °F). For Methods 5, 29, and 17, the sampling time and sample volume for each run must be at least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8 dscf), and water must be used as the cleanup solvent instead of acetone in the sample recovery procedure.
(2) For sources complying with § 63.862(a) or (b), the PM concentration must be corrected to the appropriate oxygen concentration using Equation 7 of this section as follows:
(3) Method 3A or 3B in appendix A-2 of 40 CFR part 60 must be used to determine the oxygen concentration. The voluntary consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981—Part 10 (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to using Method 3B. The gas sample must be taken at the same time and at the same traverse points as the particulate sample.
(4) For purposes of complying with § 63.862(a)(1)(ii)(A), the volumetric gas flow rate must be corrected to the appropriate oxygen concentration using Equation 8 of this section as follows:
(5)(i) For purposes of selecting sampling port location and number of traverse points, Method 1 or 1A in appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60 must be used;
(ii) For purposes of determining stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate, Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F in appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60 or Method 2G in appendix A-2 of 40 CFR part 60 must be used;
(iii) For purposes of conducting gas analysis, Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A-2 of 40 CFR part 60 must be used. The voluntary consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981—Part 10 (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to using Method 3B; and
(iv) For purposes of determining moisture content of stack gas, Method 4 in appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 must be used.
(c) * * *
(1) The owner or operator complying through the use of an NDCE recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP system is required to conduct periodic performance testing using Method 308 in appendix A of this part, as well as the methods listed in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section to demonstrate compliance with the gaseous organic HAP standard. The requirements and equations in paragraph (c)(2) of this section must be met and utilized, respectively.
(d) The owner or operator seeking to determine compliance with the gaseous organic HAP standards in § 63.862(c)(2) for semichemical combustion units must use Method 25A in appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60, as well as the methods listed in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section. The sampling time for each Method 25A run must be at least 60 minutes. The calibration gas for each Method 25A run must be propane.
(c) In addition to the general records required by § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) and (vi) through (xiv), the owner or operator must maintain records of the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section:
(1) Records of black liquor solids firing rates in units of Mg/d or ton/d for all recovery furnaces and semichemical combustion units;
(2) Records of CaO production rates in units of Mg/d or ton/d for all lime kilns;
(3) Records of parameter monitoring data required under § 63.864, including any period when the operating parameter levels were inconsistent with the levels established during the performance test, with a brief explanation of the cause of the monitoring exceedance, the time the monitoring exceedance occurred, the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and the corrective action taken;
(4) Records and documentation of supporting calculations for compliance determinations made under § 63.865(a) through (d);
(5) Records of parameter operating limits established for each affected source or process unit;
(6) Records certifying that an NDCE recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP system is used to comply with the gaseous organic HAP standard in § 63.862(c)(1);
(7) For the bag leak detection system on the hog fuel dryer fabric filter at Cosmo Specialty Fibers' Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission Unit no. HD-14), records of each alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action taken; and
(8) Records demonstrating compliance with the requirement in § 63.864(e)(1) to maintain proper operation of an ESP's AVC.
(d)(1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable standard, including any emission limit in § 63.862 or any opacity or CPMS operating limit in § 63.864, record the number of failures. For each failure record the date, start time, and duration of each failure.
(2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, and the following information:
(i) For any failure to meet an emission limit in § 63.862, record an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(ii) For each failure to meet an operating limit in § 63.864, maintain sufficient information to estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit. This information must be sufficient to provide a reliable emissions estimate if requested by the Administrator.
(3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.860(d) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) In addition to the requirements in subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of the hog fuel dryer at Cosmo Specialty Fibers' Cosmopolis, Washington, facility (Emission Unit no. HD-14) must include analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems in § 63.864(e)(12) in the Notification of Compliance Status.
(c)
(1) If the total duration of excess emissions or process control system parameter exceedances for the reporting period is less than 1 percent of the total reporting period operating time, and CMS downtime is less than 5 percent of the total reporting period operating time, only the summary report is required to be submitted. This report will be titled “Summary Report—Gaseous and Opacity Excess Emissions and Continuous Monitoring System Performance” and must contain the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (x) of this section.
(i) The company name and address and name of the affected facility.
(ii) Beginning and ending dates of the reporting period.
(iii) An identification of each process unit with the corresponding air
(iv) An identification of the applicable emission limits, operating parameter limits, and averaging times.
(v) An identification of the monitoring equipment used for each process unit and the corresponding model number.
(vi) Date of the last CMS certification or audit.
(vii) An emission data summary, including the total duration of excess emissions (recorded in minutes for opacity and hours for gases), the duration of excess emissions expressed as a percent of operating time, the number of averaging periods recorded as excess emissions, and reason for the excess emissions (
(viii) A CMS performance summary, including the total duration of CMS downtime during the reporting period (recorded in minutes for opacity and hours for gases), the total duration of CMS downtime expressed as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period, and a breakdown of the total CMS downtime during the reporting period (
(ix) A description of changes to CMS, processes, or controls since last reporting period.
(x) A certification by a certifying official of truth, accuracy and completeness. This will state that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the document are true, accurate, and complete.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) If measured parameters meet any of the conditions specified in § 63.864(k)(1) or (2), the owner or operator of the affected source must submit a semiannual report describing the excess emissions that occurred. If the total duration of monitoring exceedances for the reporting period is 1 percent or greater of the total reporting period operating time, or the total CMS downtime for the reporting period is 5 percent or greater of the total reporting period operating time, or any violations according to § 63.864(k)(2) occurred, information from both the summary report and the excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance report must be submitted. This report will be titled “Excess Emissions and Continuous Monitoring System Performance Report” and must contain the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (x) of this section, in addition to the information required in § 63.10(c)(5) through (14), as specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section. Reporting monitoring exceedances does not constitute a violation of the applicable standard unless the violation criteria in § 63.864(k)(2) and (3) are reached.
(i) An identification of the date and time identifying each period during which the CMS was inoperative except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(ii) An identification of the date and time identifying each period during which the CMS was out of control, as defined in § 63.8(c)(7).
(iii) The specific identification of each period of excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances as described in paragraphs (c)(3)(iii)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) For opacity:
(
(
(
(
(
(B) [Reserved]
(C) For wet scrubber operating parameters:
(
(
(
(D) For RTO operating temperature:
(
(
(
(E) For alternative parameters established according to § 63.864(e)(13) or (14) subject to the requirements of § 63.864(k)(1) and (2):
(
(
(
(
(iv) The nature and cause of the event (if known).
(v) The corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted.
(vi) The nature of repairs and adjustments to the CMS that was inoperative or out of control.
(4) If a source fails to meet an applicable standard, including any emission limit in § 63.862 or any opacity or CPMS operating limit in § 63.864, report such events in the semiannual excess emissions report. Report the number of failures to meet an applicable standard. For each instance, report the date, time and duration of each failure. For each failure, the report must include a list of the affected sources or equipment, and for any failure to meet an emission limit under § 63.862, provide an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(5) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit subject to the requirements of this subpart and subpart S of this part may combine excess emissions and/or summary reports for the mill.
(d)
(i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
(ii) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the test, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13 unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternative reporting method.
(2) The owner or operator must submit the notifications required in § 63.9(b) and § 63.9(h) (including any information specified in § 63.867(b)) and semiannual reports to the EPA via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (
(3) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
(4) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (
(b) * * *
(2) Approval of a major change to test method under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
| 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 |