Page Range | 48903-49085 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 49085 - Presidential Determination With Respect to the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 | |
82 FR 49083 - Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
82 FR 49025 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 49045 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science Board | |
82 FR 49040 - Rental Assistance Demonstration: Notice of Extensions for PHAs in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas | |
82 FR 49046 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 49025 - Office of Human Resources Management; SES Performance Review Board | |
82 FR 49007 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive Patent License | |
82 FR 49006 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive Patent License | |
82 FR 49006 - Board of Visitors (BoV) of the U.S. Air Force Academy; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 49074 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in California | |
82 FR 48982 - 2017 Fee Schedule for National Travel and Tourism Office for the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS)/I-92 Program, I-94 International Arrivals Program, and Survey of International Air Travelers Program | |
82 FR 48931 - Safety Zone; Light the Night Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Fireworks, Maumee River, Toledo, OH | |
82 FR 49078 - Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials, Amended Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 49045 - Notice of Permit Modification Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
82 FR 48938 - Animal Welfare; Procedures for Applying for Licenses and Renewals | |
82 FR 48940 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Canaveral Barge Canal, Canaveral, FL | |
82 FR 48939 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Banana River, Indian Harbour Beach, FL | |
82 FR 48903 - HUBZone and Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) Amendments | |
82 FR 48971 - United States Standards for Grades of Pork Carcasses | |
82 FR 49042 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Cargo Theft Incident Report | |
82 FR 48982 - Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
82 FR 48977 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From Brazil, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations | |
82 FR 48975 - Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
82 FR 49077 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Associated With Liquidity Coverage Ratio: Liquidity Risk Measurement, Standards, and Monitoring | |
82 FR 48975 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 49072 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of South Carolina | |
82 FR 49072 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Louisiana | |
82 FR 49016 - Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P., Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 49011 - Rover Pipeline LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Majorsville Compressor Station Amendment | |
82 FR 49015 - PacifiCorp; Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment | |
82 FR 49010 - Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Partial Waiver | |
82 FR 49011 - Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the 2018 Expansion Project | |
82 FR 49012 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Buckeye Xpress Project; Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Sessions | |
82 FR 49039 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-New | |
82 FR 49045 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
82 FR 49027 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection (ICR-Rev) (OMB Approval Number 0985-0004); Maintenance of Effort for Title III and Extension of, and Minor Revisions Due to Statutory Language Changes to the Certification of Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program Expenditures | |
82 FR 49037 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0092 | |
82 FR 49036 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0019 | |
82 FR 49035 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 49036 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 49036 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 49035 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 49071 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 49002 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 48986 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
82 FR 49003 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
82 FR 49002 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 48986 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
82 FR 49002 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 49005 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 48985 - Marine Mammals and Endangered Species | |
82 FR 49031 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; OBIZUR | |
82 FR 49029 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; Inspire Upper Airway Stimulation System | |
82 FR 49038 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0024 | |
82 FR 49027 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; MITRACLIP CDS | |
82 FR 49026 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review-Evaluation of the National Tobacco Prevention and Control Public Education Campaign; Correction | |
82 FR 49032 - Determination That ELAVIL (Amitriptyline Hydrochloride) Oral Tablets, 10, 25, 50, 75, 100, and 150 Milligrams, Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
82 FR 49033 - Product-Specific Guidance for Methylphenidate Hydrochloride; New Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
82 FR 49010 - DV Trading, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 49009 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
82 FR 49015 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 49055 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Changes to the ICC Clearing Rules | |
82 FR 49058 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt New Rules Governing the Trading of Complex Orders on the Exchange | |
82 FR 49046 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Changes to Certain Representations Relating to Five PIMCO Exchange-Traded Funds Currently Listed Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E | |
82 FR 49054 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Reflect Name Changes of NYSE MKT to NYSE American LLC and the National Stock Exchange to NYSE National, Inc. | |
82 FR 49050 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.76A-O To Adopt Additional Self-Trade Prevention Modifiers | |
82 FR 49068 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 964NY To Adopt Additional Self-Trade Prevention Modifiers | |
82 FR 48987 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Sand Point City Dock Replacement Project in Sand Point, Alaska | |
82 FR 49004 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Advisory Panel | |
82 FR 49041 - Foreign Endangered and Threatened Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit | |
82 FR 48939 - DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, Review of Existing DoD Regulations | |
82 FR 48938 - Defense Health Agency (DHA); Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, Review of the Existing TRICARE Regulation | |
82 FR 49073 - Administrative Declaration Amendment of Disaster for the State of California | |
82 FR 49016 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for August 2017 | |
82 FR 49025 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
82 FR 49020 - Acid Rain Program: Notification of Annual Adjustment Factors for Excess Emissions Penalty | |
82 FR 48944 - Contingency Measures for the 1997 PM2.5 | |
82 FR 49043 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Refuse Piles and Impoundment Structures-Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements | |
82 FR 49007 - Arms Sales Notification | |
82 FR 49043 - TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition and Notice of Voluntary Reduction in Scope | |
82 FR 49020 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities | |
82 FR 49035 - Division of Behavioral Health; Youth Regional Treatment Center Aftercare Pilot Project; Correction of Due Dates | |
82 FR 49034 - Performance Review Board Members | |
82 FR 48936 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Adjustment to the Atlantic Herring Management Area 1A Annual Catch Limit | |
82 FR 49077 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel FEATHER; Invitation for Public Comments | |
82 FR 49076 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel FAMILY AFFAIR; Invitation for Public Comments | |
82 FR 49075 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel HOPSCOTCH; Invitation for Public Comments | |
82 FR 48976 - Announcement of Grant Application Deadlines and Funding Levels for the Assistance to High Energy Cost Rural Communities Grant Program | |
82 FR 49074 - Notice of Public Meeting | |
82 FR 49073 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review | |
82 FR 48921 - Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes | |
82 FR 48948 - 12-Month Finding and Proposed Rule To List the Chambered Nautilus as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act | |
82 FR 48967 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Framework 2 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan | |
82 FR 48933 - International Competitive Services Product and Price Changes | |
82 FR 48904 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
82 FR 48906 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
82 FR 48924 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Rosebud, SD | |
82 FR 48925 - Amendments to Existing Validated End-User Authorization in the People's Republic of China: Lam Research Service Co., Ltd. | |
82 FR 48912 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
82 FR 48910 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
82 FR 48917 - Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes | |
82 FR 48919 - Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Type Certificate Previously Held by Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.) Airplanes | |
82 FR 48915 - Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Type Certificate Previously Held by Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.) Airplanes | |
82 FR 48942 - Approval and Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of New York; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Rural Utilities Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Maritime Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Direct final rule; request for comments.
This direct final rule amends the definition of “qualified census tract” in the HUBZone program regulations. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is making this change to its regulations to implement section 412(a) of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). Section 412(a) of PROMESA amended the definition of “qualified census tract” contained in section 3(p)(4)(A) of the Small Business Act.
This rule is effective on December 22, 2017 without further action, unless significant adverse comment is received by November 22, 2017. If significant adverse comment is received, SBA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AG92 by any of the following methods:
•
•
SBA will post all comments on
Mariana Pardo, Director, HUBZone Program, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, 202-205-2985,
On June 30, 2016, the President signed into law the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), Public Law 114-187, 130 Stat. 149. Section 412(a) of PROMESA amended the definition of “qualified census tract” (QCT) contained in section 3(p)(4)(A) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(p)(4)(A), which is relevant to SBA's HUBZone program. Amended section 3(p)(4)(A) provides that a QCT is defined as set forth in section 42(d)(5)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except for areas in Puerto Rico, which for a limited time will use the Internal Revenue Code definition without regard to subclause (II) of that definition.
Section 42(d)(5)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 provides that a QCT is a tract in which either 50 percent or more of the households have an income which is less than 60 percent of the area's median gross income, or which has a poverty rate of at least 25 percent. However, subclause (II) of section 42(d)(5)(B)(ii) sets forth a population cap that limits the portion of a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) which may be designated as a QCT to an area having 20 percent of the population of such MSA. If more than 20 percent of the population in an MSA would otherwise qualify, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ranks the tracts in that area from highest percentage of eligible households to lowest, and then designates as QCTs those tracts with the highest percentages of eligible households until the 20 percent population cap is reached.
Since PROMESA's passage, the amended definition of QCT in the Small Business Act provides that the definition of QCT contained in section 42(d)(5)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code shall apply to the HUBZone program—with one enumerated exception. The exception states that the 20 percent population cap shall not apply to census tracts located in Puerto Rico, for a period of 10 years after the date the Administrator implements this clause (or until the Financial Oversight and Management Board for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ceases to exist), whichever event occurs first. This change will result in approximately 516 new HUBZones in Puerto Rico.
This direct final rule merely adopts the statutory change that is specific to Puerto Rico as a conforming amendment. The statutory language is specific, limited and requires no interpretation. As such, SBA expects no significant adverse comments. Based on that fact, SBA has decided to proceed with a direct final rule but giving the public 30 days to comment. If SBA receives a significant adverse comment during the comment period, SBA will withdraw the rule, and proceed with a proposed rule.
In order to implement the change made by section 412(a) of PROMESA, SBA is amending § 126.103 of its regulations by revising the definition of the term “Qualified census tract”. This rules adopts the definition of this term provided in amended section 3(p)(4)(A) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(p)(4)(A).
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this direct final rule does not constitute a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule is also not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 800.
This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.
For the purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this direct final rule will not have substantial, direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, for the purpose of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, SBA has determined that this direct final rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.
This final rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because it is not significant under E.O. 12866.
SBA has determined that this direct final rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on small entities, small non-profit enterprises, and small local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rulemaking, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of the rule on small entities. However, section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Within the meaning of RFA, SBA certifies that this direct final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Small businesses.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the
15 U.S.C. 632(a), 632(j), 632(p), 644 and 657a.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a revision of certain airworthiness limitation items (ALI) documents, which require more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate the maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 27, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 27, 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 all Airbus 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 Airworthiness Directive 2016-0217, dated November 2, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A310 aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) document(s). These instructions have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness.
Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
EASA previously issued [EASA] AD 2014-0124 (later revised) [which includes actions for Airbus A310 series airplanes; those actions are included in FAA AD 2013-13-13, Amendment 39-17501 (79 FR 48957, August 19, 2014) (“AD 2013-13-13”)], to require the actions as specified in Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitation Item (ALI) Document at issue 08.
Since EASA AD 2014-0124R1 was issued, Airbus replaced ALI Document issue 08 with A310 ALS Part 2 Revision 01 and then published the A310 ALS Part 2 Variation 1.1 and Variation 1.2, to introduce more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains part of the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0124R1, which will be superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A310 ALS Part 2 Revision 01, ALS Part 2 Variation 1.1 and ALS Part 2 Variation 1.2 (hereafter collectively referred to as `the ALS' in this [EASA] AD). The remaining requirements of EASA AD 2014-0124R1 are retained in [EASA] AD 2016-0218, applicable to A300-600 aeroplanes, published at the same time as this [EASA] AD.
This AD does not supersede AD 2013-13-13. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD is more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate the maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2013-13-13.
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. The commenter 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:
• Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Revision 01, dated August 7, 2015.
• Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Variation 1.1, dated January 25, 2016.
• Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Variation 1.2, dated July 22, 2016.
This service information describes airworthiness limitations applicable to the DT-ALIs. These documents are distinct because they contain different tasks at different revision levels. 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 8 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 27, 2017.
This AD affects AD 2013-13-13, Amendment 39-17501 (79 FR 48957, August 19, 2014) (“AD 2013-13-13”).
This AD applies to all Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05.
This AD was prompted by a revision of certain airworthiness limitation items (ALI) documents, which require more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD. The initial compliance times for doing the tasks is at the time specified in the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(1) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Revision 01, dated August 7, 2015.
(2) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Variation 1.1, dated January 25, 2016.
(3) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Variation 1.2, dated July 22, 2016.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2013-13-13 for that airplane only.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0217, dated November 2, 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.
(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 A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Revision 01, dated August 7, 2015.
(ii) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Variation 1.1, dated January 25, 2016.
(iii) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Variation 1.2, dated July 22, 2016.
(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 all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of reduction of the de-icing performance of the pitot probe over time that could remain hidden to the flight crew. This
This AD is effective November 27, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 27, 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 all Airbus Model A300 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 2016-0248, dated December 15, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
An operator reported a reduction of the deicing performance of the pitot probe over the time. Pitot probes are heated to prevent ice accretion. De-icing performances of the Pitot probe might be reduced if Pitot probe heater degrades over time. Investigation results highlighted that the magnitude of de-icing performance reduction depended on how much the [pitot probe] heater is degraded. This degradation could remain hidden to the crew.
Pitot probes heater degradation, if not detected and corrected, could lead to unreliable airspeed indications, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To ensure nominal de-icing performances of the Pitot probe, Airbus developed an inspection process to check the pitot [probe] heater performance, and published Service Bulletin (SB) A300-34-0185 to provide the necessary instructions to operators.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive detailed inspections (DET) of the pitot [probe] heater, and, depending on findings, replacement with a serviceable one.
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 (ALPA) expressed its partial support for the NPRM. ALPA requested that we change the introductory text of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD from “. . . whichever occurs later . . .” to “. . . whichever occurs first . . .” ALPA is concerned that a possible duration of 30 months to comply with the initial inspection requirement of the NPRM is too long and could adversely affect safety. ALPA also mentioned that they preferred that no more than 24 months pass between inspections.
We do not agree with the commenter's request to shorten the compliance time. After considering the available information, we have determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval of time in which the required actions can be performed in a timely manner within the affected fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the detailed inspections. The proposed compliance time corresponds with the compliance times specified in the MCAI. Additionally, the affected airplanes are currently in storage. To reduce the compliance time of the proposed AD would necessitate (under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act) reissuing the notice, reopening the period for public comment, considering additional comments subsequently received, and eventually issuing a final rule. That process would delay issuance of the final rule. In light of this, and in consideration of the amount of time that has already elapsed since issuance of the original notice, we have determined that further delay of this AD is not appropriate. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Airbus recommended that we reduce the compliance time for reporting from 30 days to 10 days (after the effective date of this AD) for inspections with findings. No further justification was provided.
We do not agree with the commenter's request to reduce the compliance time for reporting. After considering the available information, we have determined that the compliance time for reporting findings, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval of time in which the required actions can be performed in a timely manner within the affected fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. To reduce the reporting compliance time of this AD would, as mentioned previouly, necessitate reissuing the notice, reopening the period for public comment, considering additional comments subsequently received, and
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments 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 Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-0185, Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of the pitot probe heater insulation resistance and replacement of the pitot probe heater. 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 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement that will be required based on the results of the required inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective November 27, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.
This AD was prompted by a report of reduction of the de-icing performance of the pitot probe over time that could remain hidden to the flight crew. We are issuing this AD to ensure nominal de-icing performance of the pitot probe in order to prevent unreliable airspeed indications, which could result in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purpose of this AD, affected pitot probes are the First Officer's Pitot Probe 40DA, Captain's Pitot Probe 41DA, and Standby Pitot Probe 42DA.
At the time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection of the pitot probe heater insulation resistance on each affected pitot probe, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-0185, Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months.
(1) Within 24 months since the last detailed inspection of the pitot probe heater insulation resistance, as specified in Airbus A300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Task 30-31-00, Insulation Test of Pitot Heater Resistance.
(2) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD.
If, during any detailed inspection as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any pitot probe fails the test, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-0185, Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016, before further flight, replace the affected pitot probe with a serviceable (new or inspected as required by this AD) pitot probe, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-0185, Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016. Replacement of pitot probes, as required by this paragraph, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
At the applicable times required by paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD: Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of each inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-0185, Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016, to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (
(1) For inspections done before the effective date of this AD: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For inspections done on or after the effective date of this AD: Within 30 days after accomplishing each inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0248, dated December 15, 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 (m)(3) and (m)(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 A300-34-0185, Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(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
(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, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in the door sill area of the aft cargo door. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the aft cargo door lower torsion box area, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 27, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 27, 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, and 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 Airworthiness Directive 2016-0241, dated December 6, 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, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Cracks were found on in-service aeroplane post mod 5438 in the door sill area, from frame (FR) 60 to FR63, including the sill beam flag, lock fitting, door sill web and torsion door panel. Two previous cases with less crack extent were also reported.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to reduced structural integrity of the aeroplane.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus published Inspection Service Bulletin (SB) A310-53-2139 and SB A300-53-6179 to provide inspection instructions for the affected areas. Airbus published also Airbus SB A310-53-2141 and SB A300-53-6181 to provide modification instructions.
Further analysis showed that aeroplanes pre-mod 5438, for which one or several lock fittings have been replaced by post mod 10319 lock fittings, could also be affected. Airbus published SB A310-53-2143 and SB A300-53-6185 to provide inspection instructions.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive Special Detailed Inspections (SDI) of the aft cargo door lower torsion box area and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
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 comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.
United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that the terminating action specified in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD be clarified to specify that the repair of a damaged fitting is terminating action for the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD for the repaired fitting location only. The commenter stated that this clarification would mitigate premature termination of repetitive inspections of the aft cargo door lower torsion box area.
We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided by the commenter. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to specify that repair of a lock fitting as required by paragraph (h) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for the repaired fitting location only.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6185, dated February 11, 2016; and Service Bulletin A310-53-2143, dated February 11, 2016; which describe, among other actions, repetitive inspections of the aft cargo door sill area for cracking. 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 18 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition corrective actions specified in 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 27, 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; except those on which Airbus Modification 5438 was embodied in production.
(1) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
(2) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
(3) Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
(4) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
(5) Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in the door sill area of the aft cargo door. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the door sill area of the aft cargo; such cracking could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within the applicable compliance time specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the door sill area (including the sill beam flag, lock fitting, door sill web, and torsion door panel) of the aft cargo door lower torsion box area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6185, dated February 11, 2016; or Service Bulletin A310-53-2143, dated February 11, 2016; as applicable. Repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15,100 flight cycles.
If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6185, dated February 11, 2016; or Service Bulletin A310-53-2143, dated February 11, 2016; as applicable; except, where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6185, dated February 11, 2016; or Service Bulletin A310-53-2143, dated February 11, 2016; specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
Repair of a lock fitting as required by paragraph (h) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for the repaired fitting location only. All other post-Airbus Modification 10319 installed fittings are to be inspected as required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0241, dated December 6, 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.
(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 A300-53-6185, dated February 11, 2016.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2143, dated February 11, 2016.
(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 all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of defective fire extinguisher tubes. This AD requires replacement of the affected fire extinguisher tubes with improved fire extinguisher tubes. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 27, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 27, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; 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 Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 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 2016-0154, dated July 28, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Several defective extinguisher tubes have been found on certain Dassault Aviation Fan Jet Falcon aeroplanes. The results of the investigations concluded that these occurrences were caused by corrosion.
This condition, if not corrected, could impact the capability to extinguish a fire in the rear compartment of the aeroplane, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires the replacement of the affected tubes with improved fire extinguisher tube. In addition, this [EASA] AD prohibits (re)installation of the affected fire extinguisher tubes on an aeroplane.
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.
Dassault Aviation noted that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD specified a compliance time of 450 flight cycles but the MCAI specified a compliance time of 450 flight hours. Dassault Aviation requested that we change the compliance time in the proposed AD to specify flight hours.
We acknowledge the commenter's request and agree that we inadvertently referred to “flight cycles” instead of “flight hours” in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. Using flight cycles gives operators approximately 3 additional months to comply with the proposed action based on the average fleet utilization of these airplanes. However, to reduce the compliance time of the proposed AD would necessitate (under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act) reissuing the notice, reopening the period for public comment, and eventually issuing a final rule. Those actions would add even more time to the rulemaking process and further delay mitigation of the unsafe condition. We find that delaying issuance of this final rule is inappropriate in light of the identified unsafe condition. Most ADs, including this one, permit operators to accomplish the requirements of an AD at a time earlier than the specified compliance time. To more closely match the EASA specified compliance time without compromising safety, we have changed the compliance time in paragraph (g) of this AD to “within 450 flight cycles or 450 flight hours, whichever occurs later after the effective date of this AD.”
One commenter, Robert Bowers, requested that we change the compliance method in the proposed AD to match that specified in AD 2015-20-08, Amendment 39-18287 (80 FR 60795, October 8, 2015) (“AD 2015-20-08”). AD 2015-20-08 requires that certain other fire extinguisher tubes be inspected every 13 months, until they need to be replaced by a new tube. The commenter added that he has inspected two Falcon airplanes and finds no reason to replace these fire extinguisher tubes at this time.
We disagree with the commenter's request. The location of the fire extinguisher tubes addressed by this AD is more critical from a design perspective than that of the fire extinguisher tubes addressed by AD 2015-20-08. The applicable fire extinguisher tubes must be replaced with tubes having an improved design to address the unsafe condition. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
In the proposed AD, we stated the applicability included “Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON” airplanes and inadvertently left out “SERIES C, D, E, F, and G” from the description. For clarity, we have revised the applicability to read “Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes . . .” in this final rule. This change does not expand the scope of the final rule or add airplanes to the applicability.
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.
Dassault Aviation has issued Service Bulletin F20-790, dated September 14,
We estimate that this AD affects 133 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 27, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(2) Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire protection.
This AD was prompted by reports of defective fire extinguisher tubes. We are issuing this AD to prevent fire extinguisher failure. Such a failure could result in the inability to extinguish a fire in the rear compartment, and possible damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 450 flight cycles or 450 flight hours, whichever occurs later after the effective date of this AD, replace each affected fire extinguisher tube, part number (P/N) MY20791-121 and P/N MY20791-122, with a serviceable fire extinguisher tube,P/N MY20791-121-1 or P/N MY20791-122-1, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F20-790, dated September 14, 2016.
No person may install a fire extinguisher tube, P/N MY20791-121 or P/N MY20791-122, on any airplane, as of the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) For an airplane equipped with an affected fire extinguisher tube as of the effective date of this AD: After modification of that airplane as required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) For an airplane that is not equipped with an affected fire extinguisher tube as of the effective date of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0154, dated July 28, 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 Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
(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) Dassault Service Bulletin F20-790, dated September 14, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
(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 Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G150 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the main entrance door (MED) opened during flight, and by the determination that the “CABIN DOOR UNLOCK” crew alerting system (CAS) message may extinguish before the handle latch pin is fully engaged. This AD requires accomplishing an updated rigging procedure for the adjustment of the MED microswitch. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 27, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 27, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Mail Station D-25, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; 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 Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G150 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI), which is the aviation authority for Israel, has issued Israeli Airworthiness Directive ISR-I-52-2017-03-28, dated January 3, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G150 airplanes. The MCAI states:
[The purpose of the Israeli AD is] to improve the Main Entrance Door (MED) microswitch adjustment procedure so that the locking indication will be extinguished when the door handle is locked.
The required actions include accomplishing an updated rigging procedure for the adjustment of the MED microswitch. The unsafe condition is the in-flight opening of the MED, which could lead to structural damage and loss of control of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the 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.
Gulfstream Aerospace LP has issued Gulfstream G150 Service Bulletin 150-52-188, dated January 15, 2016. The service information describes an updated rigging procedure for the adjustment of the MED microswitch. 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 65 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 27, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G150 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 201 through 318 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the main entrance door (MED) opened during flight, and by the determination that the “CABIN DOOR UNLOCK” crew alerting system (CAS) message may extinguish before the handle latch pin is fully engaged. We are issuing this AD to prevent the MED from opening during flight, which could lead to structural damage and loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Do an updated rigging procedure for adjustment of the MED microswitch, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Gulfstream G150 Service Bulletin 150-52-188, dated January 15, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) CAAI Airworthiness Directive ISR-I-52-2017-03-28, dated January 3, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
(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) Gulfstream G150 Service Bulletin 150-52-188, dated January 15, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Mail Station D-25, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; 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 Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. This AD was prompted by the determination that new inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the main landing gear (MLG) and corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) related tasks are necessary. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate airworthiness limitations, including new inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the MLG and to implement CPCP related tasks. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 27, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 27, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1112; fax: 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B 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 2017-0033, dated February 17, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations and/or certification maintenance instructions for SAAB SF340A and 340B, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the SAAB SF340A and 340B Airworthiness Limitation Manual (ALM). These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition [reduced structural integrity of the airplane].
Recently, Saab AB, Aeronautics issued SAAB SF340A and 340B ALM Revision 1, mainly to add new inspection tasks for the Main Landing Gear drag brace support fitting, and to implement Corrosion Prevention and Control Program related tasks.
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
Silver Airways requested clarification of the need for an AD. Silver Airways stated that the proposed requirements are already covered by the airworthiness limitation manual.
We agree that clarification is necessary. Once an aircraft is produced under a type certificate, the type design of that particular aircraft is fixed in time. Under 14 CFR 21.31(c), the airworthiness limitation section (ALS) is part of a product's type design. In order to require a revision to an ALS for in-service aircraft, the FAA issues an AD under notice and comment rulemaking procedures in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Therefore, an AD is necessary to mandate the airworthiness limitations in SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016, including inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the MLG and CPCP related tasks. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed. 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.
Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics has issued SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016. This service information describes airworthiness limitations, including inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the MLG and CPCP related tasks. 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 87 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 27, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (formerly known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before December 1, 2016.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by the determination that new inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the main landing gear (MLG) and corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) related tasks are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
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 airworthiness limitations, including inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the MLG and CPCP related tasks, specified in SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016. The compliance time for the initial airworthiness limitation tasks is at the applicable compliance time specified in SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, 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) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0033, dated February 17, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, ANM-116, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1112; fax: 425-227-1149.
(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) SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; 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 Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream 100, Astra SPX, and 1125 Westwind Astra airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the main entrance door (MED) opened during flight, and by the determination that the “CABIN DOOR UNLOCK” crew alerting system (CAS) message may extinguish before the handle latch pin is fully engaged. This AD requires accomplishing an updated rigging procedure for the adjustment of the MED microswitch. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 27, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 27, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Mail Station D-25, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; 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 Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream 100, Astra SPX, and 1125 Westwind Astra airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI), which is the aviation authority for Israel, has issued Israeli Airworthiness Directive ISR-I-52-2017-03-29, dated January 3, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream 100, Astra SPX, and 1125 Westwind Astra airplanes. The MCAI states:
[The purpose of the Israeli AD is] to improve the Main Entrance Door (MED) microswitch adjustment procedure so that the locking indication will be extinguished when the door handle is locked.
The required actions include accomplishing an updated rigging procedure for the adjustment of the MED microswitch. The unsafe condition is the in-flight opening of the MED, which could lead to structural damage and loss of control of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the 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.
Gulfstream Aerospace LP has issued G100 Service Bulletin 100-52-312, dated January 15, 2016. The service information describes an updated rigging procedure for the adjustment of the MED microswitch. 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 110 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 27, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream 100, Astra SPX, and 1125 Westwind Astra airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 004, and 011 through 158 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the main entrance door (MED) opened during flight, and by the determination that the “CABIN DOOR UNLOCK” crew alerting system (CAS) message may extinguish before the handle latch pin is fully engaged. We are issuing this AD to prevent the MED from opening during flight, which could lead to structural damage and loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Do an updated rigging procedure for the adjustment of the MED microswitch, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Gulfstream G100 Service Bulletin 100-52-312, dated January 15, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) CAAI Airworthiness Directive ISR-I-52-2017-03-29, dated January 3, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
(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) Gulfstream G100 Service Bulletin 100-52-312, dated January 15, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Mail Station D-25, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; 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 Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170 airplanes and Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the forward pressure bulkhead is subject to widespread fatigue damage. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections of the web aft face of the forward pressure bulkhead for any cracking and discrepancy, and repair if necessary. This AD also requires modification of the forward pressure bulkhead, which would terminate the inspections. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 27, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 27, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Embraer S.A., Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170—Putim—12227-901 São Jose dos Campos—SP—Brazil; telephone +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Ana Martinez Hueto, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1622; 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 Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170 airplanes and Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2017-03-01, effective March 24, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170 airplanes and Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes. The MCAI states:
This [Brazilian] AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the forward pressure bulkhead is subject to widespread fatigue damage. The modification required by this [Brazilian] AD is intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. We are issuing this [Brazilian] AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the forward pressure bulkhead, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Required actions include repetitive detailed inspections of the web aft face of the forward pressure bulkhead for any cracking and discrepancy (
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.
Embraer S.A. has issued the following service information, which describes Task 53-10-001-0005, an airworthiness limitation task for a detailed inspection of the web aft face of the forward pressure bulkhead for any cracking and discrepancies. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
• Embraer 170/175 MRB—Temporary Revision 12-3, dated September 19, 2016, to the Embraer 170/175 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1621.
• Embraer 190/195 MRB—Temporary Revision 10-4, dated September 19, 2016, to the Embraer 190/195 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1928.
Embraer S.A. has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for modifying the forward pressure bulkhead. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
• Embraer Service Bulletin 170-53-0051, Revision 03, dated August 21, 2013.
• Embraer Service Bulletin 190-53-0019, Revision 03, dated August 21, 2013.
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 482 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in 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.
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 27, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE., and -100 SU airplanes; and Model ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 SU, and -200 STD airplanes; as identified in Embraer Service Bulletin 170-53-0051, Revision 03, dated August 21, 2013.
(2) Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, and -100 IGW airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes; as identified in Embraer Service Bulletin 190-53-0019, Revision 03, dated August 21, 2013.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the forward pressure bulkhead is subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the forward pressure bulkhead, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before the accumulation of 25,954 total flight cycles, or within 3,600 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection of the web aft face of the forward pressure bulkhead for any cracking and discrepancy (
Before the accumulation of 38,931 total flight cycles: Modify the forward pressure bulkhead, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 170-53-0051, Revision 03, dated August 21, 2013; or Embraer Service Bulletin 190-53-0019, Revision 03, dated August 21, 2013; as applicable. Accomplishing the modification required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions applicable to Model ERJ 170 airplanes required by paragraph (h) 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), (i)(1)(ii), or (i)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(i) Embraer Service Bulletin 170-53-0051, dated February 26, 2010.
(ii) Embraer Service Bulletin 170-53-0051, Revision 01, dated May 25, 2011.
(iii) Embraer Service Bulletin 170-53-0051, Revision 02, May 28, 2012.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions applicable to Model ERJ 190 airplanes required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD, using the service information specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i), (i)(2)(ii), or (i)(2)(iii) of this AD.
(i) Embraer Service Bulletin 190-53-0019, dated February 26, 2010.
(ii) Embraer Service Bulletin 190-53-0019, Revision 01, dated May 25, 2011.
(iii) Embraer Service Bulletin 190-53-0019, Revision 02, dated May 28, 2012.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Brazilian AD 2017-03-01, dated March 24, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Ana Martinez Hueto, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1622; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is
(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) Embraer 170/175 MRB—Temporary Revision 12-3, dated September 19, 2016, to the Embraer 170/175 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1621.
(ii) Embraer 190/195 MRB—Temporary Revision 10-4, dated September 19, 2016, to the Embraer 190/195 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1928.
(iii) Embraer Service Bulletin 170-53-0051, Revision 03, dated August 21, 2013.
(iv) Embraer Service Bulletin 190-53-0019, Revision 03, dated August 21, 2013.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Embraer S.A., Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170—Putim—12227-901 São Jose dos Campos—SP—Brasil; telephone +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; 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 establishes Class E airspace at Rosebud, SD. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new special instrument approach procedures developed at Rosebud Sioux Tribal Airport, for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Rosebud Sioux Tribal Airport, Rosebud, SD, to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Rosebud Sioux Tribal Airport, Rosebud, SD, to accommodate new special instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Rosebud Sioux Tribal Airport.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to revise the existing Validated End-User (VEU) list for the People's Republic of China (PRC) by updating the list of eligible destinations (facilities) and eligible items in Supplement No. 7 to part 748 for Lam Research Service Co., Ltd. (Lam). The End-User Review Committee (ERC) reviewed and authorized the amendments to the eligible facilities in response to a request made by Lam and in accordance with established procedures. Changes to the list of eligible items are technical corrections intended to improve clarity. As a consequence of these amendments, the EAR will include an updated and accurate list of eligible items (items that may be exported, reexported and transferred (in-country)), and eligible Lam facilities in the PRC. Publication of this rule supports the VEU program by providing information that assists the exporting public.
This rule is effective October 23, 2017.
Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Phone: 202-482-5991; Email:
Validated End-Users (VEUs) are designated entities located in eligible destinations to which eligible items may be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) under a general authorization instead of a license. The names of the VEUs, as well as the dates they were so designated, and the associated eligible destinations (facilities) and items are identified in Supplement No. 7 to part 748 of the EAR. Pursuant to section 748.15 (Authorization Validated End-User (VEU)), eligible destinations of VEUs may obtain eligible items without the need for the VEUs' supplier to obtain an export or reexport license from BIS. Eligible items vary among VEUs and may include commodities, software, and/or technology, except items controlled for missile technology or crime control reasons on the Commerce Control List (CCL) (Supp. No. 1 to part 774 of the EAR).
VEUs are reviewed and approved by the U.S. Government in accordance with the provisions of § 748.15 and Supplement Nos. 8 and 9 to part 748 of the EAR. The ERC, composed of representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, Energy and Commerce, and other agencies as appropriate, is responsible for administering the VEU program. BIS amended the EAR in a final rule published on June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33646), to create Authorization VEU.
In this rule, BIS amends Supplement No. 7 to part 748 to revise the eligible facilities in the PRC and the items that may be exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) to those facilities under VEU authorization for Lam. Specifically, the amendments to Lam's eligible facilities, including modifications to the name and/or address, addition of new facilities, and a facility removal, are being made in response to a request from Lam. The End-User Review Committee reviewed and authorized the amendments in accordance with established procedures.
BIS also makes a technical update to the list of Lam's eligible items to increase clarity and transparency, as described further below.
Prior to this rule, Lam's VEU authorization included 18 facilities in the PRC. Of those facilities, 13 remain substantially unchanged in Supplement No. 7 to part 748 apart from minor edits made by BIS to punctuation and display (
For all Lam's facilities, this rule limits the authorization for ECCNs 2B230, 2B350.c, 2B350.d, 2B350.g, 2B350.h, 2B350.i and 3B001.e to items for the installation, warranty maintenance/repair, or maintenance/repair service of semiconductor manufacturing equipment manufactured by Lam. These end-use limits for eligible items are not new. Previously, these limitations were imposed as a condition to the authorization given to Lam, rather than specified in the description of eligible items set forth in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748.
This rule also limits the authorization for 3D001 software (excluding source code) for all facilities to allow only such software that is specially designed for the “development” or “production” of equipment controlled by paragraph .e of ECCN 3B001. A similar limitation is made for 3D002 software (excluding source code) for all facilities, so that only such software that is specially designed for the “use” of equipment controlled by paragraph .e of ECCN 3B001 qualifies as an eligible item. These changes are consistent with the fact that 3B001.c no longer appears under Lam's list of Eligible items. As a result of a foreign availability determination, BIS removed the items under paragraph .c from the CCL with the publication of the Wassenaar Arrangement Regime 2015 Implementation Rule on September 20, 2016 (81 FR 64656). Paragraph .c to 3B001 is now reserved in the CCL. The changes made by this rule recognize that paragraph .c of 3B001 no longer exists by now limiting the authorization for all Lam facilities to certain software related to paragraph .e of 3B001, rather than software that relates to all paragraphs of 3B001.
Lastly, for Lam's “Warehouse Facilities,” identified by a single asterisk in Supplement No. 7 to part 748, this rule further limits the scope of the authorization for items under ECCN 3E001 to “development” “technology” according to the General Technology Note of a type of equipment classified under paragraph .e of ECCN 3B001. For Lam's “Sales Offices,” identified by a set of double asterisks in Supplement No. 7 to part 748, this rule narrows the scope of eligible ECCN 3E001 items to “development” “technology” or “production” “technology” according to the General Technology Note of a type to support integration, assembly (mounting), inspection, testing, and quality assurance of equipment classified under paragraph .e of ECCN 3B001. Although the wording of the eligible 3E001 items changed slightly in an attempt to improve clarity, this change also reflects the removal of paragraph .c of ECCN 3B001 from the Lam list of eligible items, consistent with change to the CCL, as described above, by limiting the eligible technology to items only associated with paragraph .e of ECCN 3B001.
In summary, Eligible Items both for Lam's “Warehouse Facilities” and for “Sales Offices” will include items classified under ECCNs 2B230, 2B350.c, 2B350.d, 2B350.g, 2B350.h, 2B350.i, 3B001.e, 3D001, 3D002, and 3E001, subject to certain very specific limits. The difference between what is eligible for export to “Warehouse Facilities,” identified by a single asterisk in Supplement No. 7 to part 748, and what is eligible for export to “Sales Offices,” identified by two asterisks in Supplement No. 7 part 748, is in the limitations placed on eligible ECCN 3E001 technology. As explained above, and in the rule text, eligible 3E001 technology for “Warehouse Facilities” will only include certain “development” technology, while eligible 3E001 technology for “Sales Offices” will include certain “development” technology and certain “production” technology.
Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
4. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive the otherwise applicable requirements that this rule be subject to notice and the opportunity for public comment because it is unnecessary. In determining whether to grant VEU designations, a committee of U.S. Government agencies evaluates information about and commitments made by candidate companies, the nature and terms of which are set forth in 15 CFR part 748, Supplement No. 8. The criteria for evaluation by the committee are set forth in 15 CFR 748.15(a)(2). The information, commitments, and criteria for this extensive review were all established through the notice of proposed rulemaking (71 FR 38313, July 6, 2006), the public comment process, and issuance of the final rule establishing Authorization VEU (72 FR 33646, June 19, 2007). The publication of this rule does not establish new policy. In publishing this final rule, BIS amends the authorization for an existing eligible VEU in order to update eligible destinations (facilities) and eligible items. This change has been made within the established regulatory framework of the VEU program. Because the criteria and process for authorizing and administering VEUs were developed with public comments, allowing additional public comment on this amendment to an existing individual VEU authorization, which was determined according to those criteria, is unnecessary.
Publication of this rule in other than final form is unnecessary because the amendments made by this rule are consistent with the authorizations granted to exporters for individual export licenses (and amendments or revisions thereof), which do not undergo public review. As with license applications, VEU authorization applications contain confidential business information, which is necessary for the extensive review conducted by the U.S. Government in assessing such applications. This information is extensively reviewed according to the criteria for VEU authorizations, as set out in 15 CFR 748.15(a)(2). Just as license applications are reviewed through an interagency review process, the authorizations granted under the VEU program involve interagency deliberation and result from review of public and non-public sources, including licensing data, and the measurement of such information against the VEU authorization criteria. Given the nature of the review, and in light of the parallels between the VEU application review process and the review of license applications, public comment on the underlying authorization and any subsequent amendments that update the authorization prior to publication is unnecessary. Moreover, because, as noted above, the criteria and process for authorizing and administering VEUs were developed with public comments, allowing additional public comment on this amendment to an individual VEU authorization, which was determined according to those criteria, is unnecessary.
Section 553(d) of the APA provides that rules generally may not take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in the
No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required under the APA or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 748 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4601
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone on the Maumee River, Toledo, Ohio. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Maumee River for the Light the Night Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Fireworks Display. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays.
This regulation is effective from 8 p.m. through 9 p.m. on October 22, 2017.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2017-0923]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email MST1 Ryan Erpelding, Waterways Department, Marine Safety Unit Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone (419) 418-6037, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. The event sponsor notified the Coast Guard with insufficient time to accommodate the comment period. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for the comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would prevent the Captain of the Port Detroit from keeping the public safe from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks displays.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks displays starting after 8 p.m. on October 22, 2017 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 725-foot radius of the launch site. The likely combination of recreational vessels, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and fireworks debris falling into the water presents risks of collisions which could result in serious injuries or fatalities. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks display.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 p.m. through 9 p.m. on October 22, 2017. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of
The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or the designated patrol personnel. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
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 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) 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 including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The majority of vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the safety zone, which will impact only a portion of the Maumee River in Toledo, OH for a short period time. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The 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. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on 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 V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry within a 350-yard radius from where a fireworks display will be
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.
(3) The “designated representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf. The designated representative of the Captain of the Port Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is revising
Effective: January 21, 2018.
Paula Rabkin at 202-268-2537.
New prices will be posted under Docket Number CP2018-8 on the Postal Regulatory Commission's Web site at
This final rule describes the international price and classification changes and the corresponding mailing standards changes for the following Competitive Services:
• Global Express Guaranteed® (GXG®).
• Priority Mail Express International®.
• Priority Mail International®.
• First-Class Package International Service® (FCPIS®).
• International Priority Airmail® (IPA®).
• International Surface Air Lift® (ISAL®).
• Direct Sacks of Printed Matter to One Addressee (Airmail M-bag® services).
• The following international extra services and fees:
• International Insurance.
• International Certificate of Mailing.
• International Registered Mail.
• International Return Receipt.
• International Postal Money Orders.
• International Money Order Inquiry Fee.
• International Money Transfer Service.
• Customs Clearance and Delivery Fee.
Global Express Guaranteed (GXG) service provides fast international shipping and date-certain delivery with a money-back guarantee, with international transportation and delivery provided through an alliance with FedEx Express®. The price increase for GXG service averages 3.9 percent.
The Postal Service provides Commercial Base pricing to online customers who prepare and pay for GXG shipments via USPS-approved payment methods (other than Click-N-Ship® service), with a 5 percent discount off the published retail prices for GXG service. Customers who prepare GXG shipments via Click-N-Ship service will continue to pay retail prices. Commercial Plus prices are set to match the Commercial Base prices.
Priority Mail Express International service provides fast service to approximately 180 countries in 3-5 business days, for many major markets, although the actual number of days may vary based upon origin, destination and customs delays. Priority Mail Express International with Money-Back Guarantee service is available for certain destinations. The price increase for Priority Mail Express International service averages 3.9 percent. The Commercial Base price for customers who prepare and pay for Priority Mail Express International shipments via permit imprint, online at USPS.com®, or as registered end-users using an authorized PC Postage vendor (with the exception of Click-N-Ship service) will
The Postal Service will also continue to include Priority Mail Express International service in customized Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS) contracts offered to customers who meet certain revenue thresholds and are willing to commit a larger amount of revenue to the USPS® for Priority Mail Express International service and Priority Mail International service.
Priority Mail International (PMI) is an economical way to send merchandise and documents to approximately 180 countries in 6-10 business days, for many major markets, although the actual number of days may vary based upon origin, destination and customs delays. The price increase for Priority Mail International service averages 3.9 percent. The Commercial Base price for customers who prepare and pay for PMI items via permit imprint, online at USPS.com, or as registered end-users using an authorized PC Postage vendor (with the exception of Click-N-Ship) will be 5 percent below the retail price. Customers who prepare Priority Mail International shipments via Click-N-Ship pay retail prices. Commercial Plus prices are set to match Commercial Base prices. The Postal Service will continue to include Priority Mail International service in customized GEPS contracts offered to customers who meet certain revenue thresholds and are willing to commit to a larger amount of revenue to the USPS for Priority Mail Express International and Priority Mail International.
Priority Mail International flat rate pricing continues to be available for Flat Rate Envelopes, Small Flat Rate Priced Boxes, and Medium and Large Flat Rate Boxes.
First-Class Package International Service (FCPIS) is an economical international service for small packages weighing less than 4 pounds and not exceeding $400 in value. The price increase for FCPIS averages 3.9 percent. The Commercial Base price for customers who prepare and pay for FCPIS items via permit imprint or by USPS-approved online payment methods will be 5 percent below the retail price. Customers who prepare FCPIS shipments via Click-N-Ship service pay retail prices. Commercial Plus prices are set to match the Commercial Base prices.
Electronic USPS Delivery Confirmation International service—abbreviated E-USPS DELCON INTL—is available for First-Class Package International Service items to select destination countries at no charge.
International Priority Airmail (IPA) service, including IPA M-bags, is an economical commercial service designed for volume mailings of all First-Class Mail International postcards, letters, and large envelopes (flats), and for volume mailings of First-Class Package International Service packages (small packets) weighing up to a maximum of 4.4 pounds. IPA shipments are typically flown to foreign destinations (exceptions apply to Canada and Mexico) and are then entered into that country's air or surface priority mail system for delivery. The price increase for IPA and IPA M-Bags is 3.9 percent. International Surface Airlift (ISAL) is similar to IPA except that once flown to the foreign destination, it is entered into that country's air or surface nonpriority mail system for delivery. The price increase for International Priority Airmail (IPA), as well as IPA M-Bags, is 3.9 percent.
In this filing we are proposing a structural change. As stated in the notice concerning International Mailing Services: Proposed Product and Price Changes—CPI Proposed Rule with a Request for Comments, concerning new proposed prices posted under Docket R2018-1 on the Postal Regulatory Commission's Web site, published contemporaneously with this filing, the Postal Service is limiting the contents of First-Class Mail International postcard, letter, and large envelope (flats) mail to personal correspondence and non-dutiable documents. Because IPA service, including IPA M-bags, and ISAL service, including ISAL M-bags, are commercial services designed for volume mailings of all First-Class Mail International postcards, letters, and large envelopes (flats) and First-Class Package International Service packages (small packets), the limiting of the contents of First-Class Mail International postcard, letter, and large envelope (flat) mail discussed above will also apply to IPA postcard, letter, and large envelope (flat) mail and ISAL postcard, letter, and large envelope (flat) mail.
An airmail M-bag is a direct sack of printed matter sent to a single foreign addressee at a single address. Prices are based on the weight of the sack. The price increase for Airmail M-bag service averages 3.9 percent.
Depending on country destination and mail type, customers may add a variety of extra services to their outbound shipments and pay a variety of fees. Prices for these fees and services increase an average 3.9 percent.
The Postal Service hereby adopts the following changes to
Foreign relations, International postal services.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 20 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 407, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
A “known mailer” must meet one of the definitions in 123.622 and must meet the conditions in 123.623.
A “known mailer” may be exempt from the customs form requirement that would otherwise apply to package-size mailpieces as defined in 251.2. A “known mailer” must meet one of the definitions in 123.622 and must meet the conditions in 123.623.
A “known mailer” must meet one of the following definitions:
a. A federal, state, or local government agency whose mail is regarded as Official Mail.
b. A contractor who sends out prepaid mail on behalf of a military service, provided the mail is endorsed “Contents for Official Use—Exempt from Customs Requirements.”
c. A business mailer who enters volume mailings through a business mail entry unit (BMEU) or other bulk mail acceptance location, completes a postage statement at the time of entry, pays postage through an advance deposit account, and uses a permit imprint for postage payment. For this purpose, the categories of mail that qualify are as follows:
(1) First-Class Package International Service.
(2) International Priority Airmail (IPA) service.
(3) International Surface Air Lift (ISAL) service.
The following conditions apply to “known mailers”:
a. The mailpieces must contain no merchandise or goods, except as provided in 123.623b and 123.623c.
b. Merchandise may only be mailed as First-Class Package International Service packages (small packets) (or as IPA packages (small packets) and ISAL packages (small packets) for commercial mailers).The mailpieces may contain hard copy printed matter or recorded media (
(1) The mailpiece must not require an export license as described in 510, 520, 530, or 540.
(2) Any packaging used for package-sized items under this subsection must be transparent, such as shrinkwrap or polywrap material, so that the contents are fully visible for inspection.
c. First-Class Package International Service packages (and IPA packages (small packages) and ISAL packages (small packets) for commercial mailers) may contain goods of nominal value (less than $1.00) in conjunction with communications or informational materials for which no customs form is required in the destination country. In addition, authorization to mail items under this standard is subject to the following conditions:
(1) The mailpieces must not require an export license as described in 510, 520, 530, or 540.
(2) The mailpieces must not contain dangerous or prohibited items under IMM 135 or 136, or be otherwise prohibited by the destination country.
(3) The mailpieces cannot be destined to an E:1 country listed in 15 CFR 740, Supp. 2.
(4) The mailpieces cannot contain any items listed in the Commerce Control List (15 CFR 774) or the U.S. Munitions List (22 CFR 121).
d. If the mailpieces are mailed with a postage statement, the mailer must certify on the postage statement that the mailpieces contain no dangerous materials that are prohibited by postal regulations.
e. The import regulations of the destination country must allow individual mailpieces without a customs form affixed.
f. For IPA and ISAL mailings, the mailer must pay with a permit imprint or with a combination postage method (meter postage affixed to the piece and additional postage by permit imprint). IPA and ISAL mailpieces that are paid for by postage solely with a meter do not qualify for the “known mailer” exemption.
g. Failure to comply with the conditions in this section, or with any other applicable regulations or policies of the Postal Service or other relevant governmental authorities, may result in the suspension or revocation of eligibility to mail items without a customs form affixed pursuant to this section. For example, a suspension or revocation may result when the mailer fails to ensure his or her compliance with 510, 520, 530, or 540, such as ensuring that no mailings are sent to persons blocked from transacting in such items by the federal agencies described in those IMM sections.
International Priority Airmail (IPA) service, including IPA M-bags, is a commercial service designed for volume mailings of all First-Class Mail International postcards, letters, and large envelopes (flats), and for volume mailings of First-Class Package International Service packages (small packets). The sender must prepare mailpieces in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter and with the content-based and shape-based requirements of the applicable service—see 240 for First-Class Mail International items, and see 250 for First-Class Package International Service items.* * *
Dutiable items may be sent in accordance with the applicable rules in this subchapter for First-Class Package International Service only. Priority Mail International items may not be mailed with IPA service.
International Surface Air Lift (ISAL) service, including ISAL M-bags, is a commercial service designed for volume mailings of all First-Class Mail International postcards, letters, and large envelopes (flats), and for volume mailings of First-Class Package International Service packages (small packets). The sender must prepare mailpieces in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter and with the content-based and shape-based requirements of the applicable service—see 240 for First-Class Mail International items, and see 250 for First-Class Package International Service items.* * *
Dutiable items may be sent in accordance with the applicable rules in this subchapter for First-Class Package International Service only. Priority Mail International items may not be mailed with ISAL service.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 20 to reflect these changes.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.
NMFS is adjusting the 2017 fishing year annual catch limit for Atlantic Herring Management Area 1A due to an underharvest in the New Brunswick weir fishery. This action is necessary to comply with the 2016-2018 specifications and management measures for the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management.
Effective October 24, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
Daniel Luers, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-282-8457, Fax 978-281-9135.
Regulations governing the Atlantic herring fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of the overfishing limit, acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limit (ACL), optimum yield (OY), domestic harvest and processing, U.S. at-sea processing, border transfer, and sub-annual catch limits (sub-ACL) for each management area. The 2017 Domestic Annual Harvest was set as 104,800 metric tons (mt); an additional 9,384 mt was added to the sub-ACLs for the four herring management areas collectively from an underharvest during the 2015 fishing year, and 3 percent of herring catch was set aside for research in the 2016-2018 specifications (81 FR 75731, November 1, 2016). The ACL for the 2017 fishing
Due to the variability of Canadian catch in the New Brunswick weir fishery, a 1,000-mt portion of the 4,000-mt buffer between ABC and OY (the buffer to account for Canadian catch) is allocated to Area 1A, provided New Brunswick weir landings are lower than the amount specified in the buffer.
The NMFS Regional Administrator is required to monitor the fishery landings in the New Brunswick weir fishery each year. If New Brunswick weir fishery herring catch through October 1 is less than 4,000 mt, then 1,000 mt will be subtracted from the management uncertainty buffer and allocated to the ACL and Area 1A sub-ACL. When such a determination is made, NMFS is required to publish a notification in the
The Regional Administrator has determined, based on the best available information, that the New Brunswick weir fishery catch for fishing year 2017 through October 1, 2017, was 1,732 mt. Therefore, effective October 24, 2017, through December 31, 2017, 1,000 mt will be allocated to the Area 1A sub-ACL, thereby increasing the fishing year 2017 Area 1A sub-ACL from 31,115 mt to 32,115 mt. Because this increase to a sub-ACL also increases the stock-wide ACL, this allocation increases the 2017 stock-wide ACL from 101,656 mt to 102,656 mt.
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This action increases the sub-ACL for Area 1A by 1,000 mt (31,115 mt to 32,115 mt) through December 31, 2017, thereby relieving a more restrictive catch limit. The regulations at 50 CFR 648.201(f) require such action to help mitigate some of the negative economic effects associated with the reduction in the Area 1A sub-ACL in the 2016-2018 specifications process. The herring fishery extends from January 1 to December 31. Data indicating the New Brunswick weir fishery landed less than 4,000 mt through October 1, 2017, only recently became available. Allowing for prior notice and public comment on this adjustment is impracticable because regulations require this allocation to occur as quickly as is practicable and for the remainder of the fishing year. Because the Management Area 1A fishery is generally fully prosecuted and closed between mid-October and mid-November, a delay in implementation of this action may result in the 1,000-mt allocation occurring after closure of Area 1A. If this occurred, it is unlikely that the additional 1,000 mt would be enough to warrant reopening the 1A fishery, and would thus result in incomplete harvest of the 1A sub-ACL. Further, this is a nondiscretionary action required by provisions in the 2016-2018 Atlantic Herring Specifications and Management Measures (herring specifications), which previously provided notice to the public that this 1,000 mt allocation would occur if the Canadian catch level was sufficiently low, and offered full opportunity to comment on this. The adjustment required by the regulation is formulaic. It does not change existing regulations, but simply puts the predetermined adjustment into effect. NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
We are extending the comment period for our advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding potential revisions to the licensing requirements under our Animal Welfare Act regulations. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
The comment period for the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking published on August 24, 2017 (82 FR 40077), is extended. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before November 2, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Kay Carter-Corker, Director, National Policy Staff, Animal Care, APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3748.
On August 24, 2017, we published in the
Comments on the ANPR were required to be received on or before October 23, 2017. We are extending the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2017-0062 for an additional 10 days. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
Office of the Assistance Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Department of Defense.
Request for comment.
In accordance with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” the DHA Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force is seeking input on the sections of the existing TRICARE regulation that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification. See the
Interested parties should submit written comments to the address shown in this document on or before January 22, 2018, to be considered.
Submit comments identified by “DOD-2017-HA-0060” using any of the following methods:
•
•
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Mr. Matthew Minnier, telephone 703-275-6304.
On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people.
Section 3(a) of the E.O. directs Federal agencies to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force). One of the duties of the Task Force is to evaluate existing regulations and “make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation; (ii) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; (iii) impose costs that exceed benefits; (iv) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies; (v) are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard of reproducibility; or (vi) derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.”
Section 3(e) of the E.O. 13777 calls on the Task Force to “seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations, including State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, trade associations” on regulations that meet some or all of the criteria as described in this notice. Through this request for comments, DHA is soliciting such input from the public to inform evaluation of the sections of the TRICARE regulation at 32 CFR part 199 by the Task Force's DHA Subgroup. Although DHA will not respond to each individual comment, DHA may follow-up with respondents to clarify comments. DHA values public feedback and will consider all input that it receives.
Department of Defense.
Request for comment.
In accordance with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” the primary DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force is seeking input on existing DoD regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification. See the
Interested parties should submit written comments to the address shown in this document on or before January 22, 2018, to be considered.
Submit comments identified by “DOD-2017-OS-0059” using any of the following methods:
•
•
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Patricia Toppings, telephone 571-372-0485; or Ms. Morgan Park, telephone 571-372-0489.
On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people.
Section 3(a) of the E.O. directs Federal agencies to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force). One of the duties of the Task Force is to evaluate existing regulations and “make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification.” The E.O. further asks that each Task Force “attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation; (ii) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; (iii) impose costs that exceed benefits; (iv) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies; (v) are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard of reproducibility; or (vi) derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.”
Section 3(e) of the E.O. 13777 calls on the Task Force to “seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations, including State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, trade associations” on regulations that meet some or all of the criteria as described in this document. Through this request for comments, DoD is soliciting such input from the public to inform evaluation of its existing regulations by the primary DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force. Please do not provide comments in response to this document on the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, the Army Corps of Engineers regulations, or the Defense Health Agency TRICARE regulation as separate documents have been published to solicit comments on the regulations being reviewed by the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force Subgroups. Although DoD will not respond to each individual comment, DoD may follow-up with respondents to clarify comments. DoD values public feedback and will consider all input that it receives.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening comment period.
The Coast Guard is re-opening the comment period to solicit additional comments concerning its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published in April 2017 that proposes to change the regulation governing Mathers Bridge across the Banana River, mile 0.5, in Indian Harbour Beach, FL. The Coast Guard District Seven Bridge Office received a request from the City of Indian Harbour Beach, Florida requesting to re-open the comment period in order to allow members of the public to comment that did not have awareness of the initial notice and comment period.
Comments and relate material must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 22, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0060 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email LT Allen Storm with Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville Waterways; telephone 904-714-7616, email
On April 24, 2017, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Banana River, Indian Harbour Beach, FL” in the
The City of Indian Harbour Beach notified the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Office they were unaware of the proposed regulation change as it impacts their residents. Reopening the comment period and providing notification of this action to the local media should accomplish the goal intended, which is to reach a broader range of waterway and highway users.
Public participation is essential to effective rulemaking, and consideration of all comments and material received during the comment period will be made. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
This notice, re-opening the comment period, ensures notice and opportunity to comment on the NPRM before making the proposed changes final. This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223 and 5 U.S.C. 552.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the SR 401 Drawbridge, mile 5.5 at Port Canaveral, Florida. This modified regulation is necessary to reduce vehicular traffic congestion and to ensure the safety of the roadways while passengers are transiting to and from Cruise Terminal 10, which is used by Norwegian Cruise Line at Port Canaveral. Since the homeporting of the cruise ship Norwegian Epic in the Port of Canaveral, traffic back-ups have been caused by the drawbridge openings. This modified regulation allows the bridge not to open to navigation during typical cruise-ship passenger loading and unloading times on Saturdays and Sundays.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 22, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0161 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Eddie Lawrence of the Coast Guard Bridge Branch; telephone 305-415-6946, email
On April 25, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation with request for comments in the
The existing regulation as published at 33 CFR 117.273 states: (b) The drawspan of the SR401 Drawbridge, mile 5.5 at Port Canaveral, must open on signal; except that, from 6:30 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the drawspan need not be opened for the passage of vessels. From 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. the drawspan must open on signal if at least three hours notice is
Under the current temporary deviation, the bridge remains in the closed-to-navigation position from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The Canaveral Port Authority has requested this deviation. The bridge logs from November 2016 indicate that, at most, an average of nine vessels per month may be affected by establishing this three hour bridge closure on Saturdays and Sundays. The majority of the opening requests were either at the beginning or end of this closure period; therefore, if these mariners adjust their transits slightly there should be a negligible overall effect.
The comment that was received stated that allowing this bridge to be closed for three hours during the weekends is unreasonable to vessel traffic as it limits the times the bridge will be available for use by the maritime community. The commenter also stated that the bridge should be allowed to open at least once an hour and that there was very little vehicle traffic during the third hour. The Coast Guard agrees. For this reason, the Coast Guard will continue to evaluate the impact to mariners navigating this area during the closure periods and has pubished this NPRM to allow for additional comments.
This modified regulation is necessary to reduce vehicular traffic congestion and to ensure the safety of the roadways while passengers are transiting to and from Cruise Terminal 10, which is used by Norwegian Cruise Line at Port Canaveral. Since the arrival of the cruise ship Norwegian Epic to the Port of Canaveral, massive traffic back-ups have been caused by the drawbridge openings.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge before and after the proposed periods. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may continue to do so.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed 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 proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further
A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record not required for this proposed rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(b) The drawspan of the SR401 Drawbridge, mile 5.5 at Port Canaveral, must open on signal; except that, from 6:30 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the drawspan need not be opened for the passage of vessels. On Saturday and Sunday, this bridge will be allowed to remain closed to navigation from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. each day. From 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. the drawspan must open on signal if at least three hours notice is given. The drawspan must open as soon as possible for the passage of public vessels of the United States and tugs with tows.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve a source-specific revision to the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision establishes Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) emission limits for sulfur dioxide that are identical to those set by the EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, which was promulgated in an action taken on August 28, 2012. The EPA proposes to find that the SIP revision fulfills the requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule for the Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. In conjunction with this proposed approval, we propose to withdraw those portions of the FIP that address BART for the Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2.
Comment must be received on or before November 22, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0340), to
Irene B. Nielson, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866 at 212-637-3586 or by email at
Throughout this document whenever “Agency,” “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
The EPA is proposing to approve a source-specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for Units 1 and 2 at the Roseton Generating Station submitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) on April 18, 2017. The EPA is proposing to approve emission limits for sulfur dioxide (SO
This section provides a brief overview of the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Regional Haze Rule, as they apply to this particular action. Please refer to our previous rulemakings on the New York Regional Haze SIP for additional background regarding the visibility protection provisions of the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule.
The CAA requires each state to develop plans to meet various air quality requirements, including protection of visibility. (CAA sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B). The plans developed by a state are referred to as SIPs. A state must submit its SIPs and SIP revisions to EPA for approval. Once approved, a SIP is federally enforceable, that is enforceable by the EPA and subject to citizen suits under the CAA. If a state fails to make a required SIP submittal, or if we find that a state's required submittal is incomplete, or if we disapprove the submittal, then EPA must promulgate a FIP to fill this regulatory gap. (CAA section 110(c)(1)).
In the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress initiated a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. Section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” In 1990 Congress added section 169B to the CAA to address regional haze issues. On July 1, 1999, the EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR 35714). The requirement to submit a Regional Haze SIP applies to New York and all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. The RHR required states to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b).
The EPA's final action on New York's Regional Haze SIP included approving 17 source-specific SIP revisions containing permits for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and promulgating a FIP to address two sources where EPA disapproved New York's BART determinations. These two sources are the Roseton Generating Station (Units 1 and 2) and the Danskammer Generating Station (Unit 4). 77 FR 51915 (August 28, 2012).
In the 2012 FIP, the EPA “encourage[d] New York at any time to submit a SIP revision to incorporate provisions that match the terms of our FIP, or relevant portion thereof,” explaining that if EPA approved the SIP revision, it would replace the FIP provisions (77 FR 51915). On April 18, 2017, NYSDEC responded to this by submitting a request for a source-specific SIP revision for the Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, that matches the terms of EPA's FIP. Because NYSDEC was not required to update its BART determinations beyond incorporating the BART emission limits from the 2012 FIP, the EPA has no basis to disapprove the SIP revision and supplant it with another FIP. Therefore, in this action, the EPA proposes to approve the SIP revision and remove the Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, from the FIP. This action follows EPA's proposed action to remove the Danskammer Generation Station Unit 4 from the FIP. See 82 FR 21749 (May 10, 2017).
On April 18, 2017, NYSDEC submitted a request for a source-specific SIP Revision for Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, intended to replace the EPA's FIP BART emission limits and related requirements that were promulgated on August 28, 2012 (77 FR 51915).
NYSDEC submitted to the EPA the Title V permit conditions 32.1 and 32.2 (pages 30-31) of the permit renewed on December 5, 2016 for the Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, and a copy of the NYSDEC ENB notice of February 15, 2017 for the proposed Roseton Generating Station SIP revision.
NYSDEC's submittal includes BART emission limits for the Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, that are identical to those contained in the EPA FIP: 0.55 pounds of SO
The EPA has evaluated and is proposing to approve NYSDEC's SIP submittal for the Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, which consists of emission limits for SO
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference a source-specific SIP revision dated April 18, 2017, which includes BART emission limits for SO
In reviewing NYSDEC's SIP submittal, the EPA's role is to approve state choices if they meet the requirements of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866
• 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 (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).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides, Reporting recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine that the deficiency that formed the basis for a disapproval of the contingency measures submitted for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM
Any comments must arrive by November 22, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0580 at
Rory Mays, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3227,
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Under sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), the EPA establishes national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Over the years, the EPA has established NAAQS for particulate matter, ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. Under CAA section 110, each state must adopt and submit state implementation plans (SIPs) to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS within such state. Under CAA section 107, the EPA designates areas of the country as “nonattainment” if the area does not meet a particular NAAQS or if the area contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. In response to a nonattainment designation, states must revise their SIPs to provide for, among other things, reasonable further progress (RFP), attainment by the most expeditious date practicable but no later than the applicable attainment date, and contingency measures in the event the area fails to meet RFP or attainment by the applicable attainment date.
Under CAA section 179(a), disapproval of a required SIP or SIP revision (in whole or in part) triggers a sanctions clock that runs from the effective date of the final action. Under 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(2) apply in the nonattainment area 18 months after the effective date of the disapproval action, and the highway sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) apply in the area six months thereafter, unless the state submits, and the EPA approves, prior to the implementation of the sanctions, a SIP submission that corrects the deficiencies identified in the disapproval action.
On July 18, 1997, the EPA established new NAAQS for particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM
Effective April 5, 2005, the EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley in California as nonattainment for the 1997 PM
Between 2007 and 2011, CARB made six SIP submittals to address nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997 PM
Section 172(c)(9) requires states with nonattainment areas to revise the SIP to provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to meet RFP or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. As the EPA has explained in guidance to the states regarding the contingency measure requirements in section 172(c)(9), contingency measures should, at a minimum, ensure that an appropriate level of emission reduction progress continues to be made if attainment or RFP is not achieved and additional planning by the state is needed.
The contingency measure element of the 2008 PM
We disapproved the contingency measure element of the 2008 PM
Several environmental and community organizations filed a petition for review challenging the EPA's November 9, 2011 approval of the attainment demonstration and reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstrations in the 2008 PM
On July 3, 2013, CARB made a new submittal to meet the contingency measure requirements for the 1997 PM
On May 22, 2014, the EPA fully approved the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP based on the Agency's conclusion that the SIP submittal corrected the outstanding deficiencies in the CAA section 172(c)(9) contingency measures for the 1997 PM
At the time of the EPA's 2014 action, there was not yet a decision in the
On May 20, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in
On June 10, 2015, the EPA filed an unopposed motion for voluntary remand of the May 22, 2014 final rule without vacatur based,
On remand, consistent with the court's ruling in
On August 14, 2015, CARB submitted a SIP revision consisting of certain state regulations establishing standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new on-road and new and in-use off-road vehicles and engines. The regulations submitted on August 14, 2015 had previously been
The EPA's approval into the SIP of the comprehensive set of California waiver measures on June 16, 2016 as described above addresses the specific deficiency that formed the basis of our May 12, 2016 disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP. In addition, the emissions reductions from the SIP-approved waiver measures have achieved post-attainment year emission reductions equivalent to approximately one year's worth of RFP as calculated for the 2008 PM
For the next 30 days, we will accept comments from the public on this proposal to determine that the deficiency that formed the basis of our disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP has been corrected by the approval of the waiver measures as a revision to the California SIP and the finding that the waiver measures have achieved post-2014 attainment year emissions reductions sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the contingency measure requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9). The deadline and instructions for submission of comments are provided in the
This proposed action makes a determination that a deficiency that is the basis for sanctions has been corrected and imposes no additional requirements. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides, Particulate matter.
42 U.S.C. 7401
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; request for comments.
We, NMFS, announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list the chambered nautilus (
Comments on the proposed rule to list the chambered nautilus must be received by December 22, 2017. Public hearing requests must be made by December 7, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0098, by either of the following methods:
•
•
The petition, status review report,
Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403.
On May 31, 2016, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list the chambered nautilus (
We are responsible for determining whether the chambered nautilus is threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Thus, in the context of the ESA, the Services interpret an “endangered species” to be one that is presently at risk of extinction. A “threatened species” is not currently at risk of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). The key statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a species is or is likely to become in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).
When we consider whether a species qualifies as threatened under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term “foreseeable future.” It is appropriate to interpret “foreseeable future” as the horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the species can be reasonably relied upon. What constitutes the foreseeable future for a particular species depends on species-specific factors such as the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the reliability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events on the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are available, or which operate across different time scales, the foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number of years.
The statute requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range as a result of any one or a combination of
A NMFS biologist in the Office of Protected Resources conducted the status review for the chambered nautilus (Miller 2017). The status review is a compilation of the best available scientific and commercial information on the species' biology, ecology, life history, threats, and status from information contained in the petition, our files, a comprehensive literature search, and consultation with nautilus experts. We also considered information submitted by the public in response to our petition finding. In assessing the extinction risk of the chambered nautilus, we considered the demographic viability factors developed by McElhany et al. (2000). The approach of considering demographic risk factors to help frame the consideration of extinction risk is well accepted and has been used in many of our status reviews, including for Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound rockfishes, Pacific herring, scalloped, great, and smooth hammerhead sharks, and black abalone (see
The draft status review report was subjected to independent peer review as required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). The draft status review report was peer reviewed by independent specialists selected from the academic and scientific community, with expertise in nautilus biology, conservation, and management. The peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the adequacy, appropriateness, and application of data used in the status review, including the extinction risk analysis. All peer reviewer comments were addressed prior to dissemination and finalization of the draft status review report and publication of this finding.
We subsequently reviewed the status review report, its cited references, and peer review comments, and believe the status review report, upon which this 12-month finding and proposed rule is based, provides the best available scientific and commercial information on the chambered nautilus. Much of the information discussed below on the species' biology, distribution, abundance, threats, and extinction risk is presented in the status review report. However, in making the 12-month finding determination and proposed rule, we have independently applied the statutory provisions of the ESA, including evaluation of the factors set forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E) and our regulations regarding listing determinations at 50 CFR part 424. The status review report is available on our Web site (see
Nautilus taxonomy is controversial. Based on the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS), which has a disclaimer that states it “is based on the latest scientific consensus available . . . [but] is not a legal authority for statutory or regulatory purposes,” two genera are presently recognized within the family of Nautilidae:
However, because the taxonomy of the
The chambered nautilus is an externally-shelled cephalopod with a distinctive coiled calcium-carbonate shell that is divided into chambers. The shell can range in color from white to orange, and even purple, with unique color patterns (Barord 2015). Its distinctive coiled shell is what makes the chambered nautilus a highly sought after commodity in international trade (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) 2016). The body of the chambered nautilus is housed in the largest chamber within the shell, and when the animal is attacked, it can seal itself into this chamber, closing the opening with a large, fleshy hood (Jereb 2005). The chambered nautilus also has up to 90 tentacles, without suckers, which they use to dig in substrate and scavenge for food (Barord 2015) and to grab on to reef surfaces for rest (CITES 2016).
The chambered nautilus is found in tropical, coastal reef, deep-water habitats of the Indo-Pacific. Its known range includes waters off American Samoa, Australia, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, and it may also potentially occur in waters off China, Myanmar, Western Samoa, Thailand, and Vietnam (CITES 2016). Additionally, Saunders et al. (2017) notes that traps set at
Within its range, the chambered nautilus has a patchy distribution and is unpredictable in its area of occupancy. Based on multiple research studies, the
Despite the apparent temperature and depth constraints of the species, larger-scale migrations, although rare, have occurred. For example, an
Chambered nautiluses are described as deep-sea scavenging generalists and opportunistic predators. As previously mentioned, the chambered nautilus uses its 90 retractable tentacles to dig in the substrate and feed on a variety of organisms, including fish, crustaceans, echinoids, nematodes, cephalopods, other marine invertebrates, and detrital matter (Saunders and Ward 2010; Barord 2015). The chambered nautilus also has an acute sense of olfaction and can easily smell odors (such as prey) in turbulent waters from significant distances (of up to 10 m) (Basil et al. 2000).
The general life history characteristics of the chambered nautilus are that of a rare, long-lived, late-maturing, and slow-growing marine invertebrate species, with likely low reproductive output. Circumferential growth rate for the chambered nautilus is estimated to range from 0.053 mm/day to 0.23 mm/day and slows as the animal approaches maturity (Dunstan et al. 2010; Dunstan et al. 2011b). However, average size at maturity of
Chambered nautilus longevity is at least 20 years, with age to maturity between 10 and 17 years (Dunstan et al. 2011b; Ward et al. 2016). Very little is known regarding nautilus reproduction in the wild. Observations of captive animals suggest that nautiluses reproduce sexually and have multiple reproductive cycles over the course of their lifetime. Based on data from captive
Most of the recent genetic data suggest that
On a smaller geographic/population scale, Sinclair et al. (2007) analyzed DNA sequence information from
In addition to genetics, other studies have looked at morphological differences to examine isolation between
While it is thought that deep water largely serves as a barrier to movement of
Given the above information, it is reasonable to assume that populations separated by large geographic distances and deep water are genetically differentiated, with very little to no gene flow.
In terms of genetic diversity, Williams et al. (2015) estimated large ancestral and current effective population sizes for the Philippines (current median size = 3,190,920) and Ashmore Reef (Western Australia) (current median size = 2,562,800) populations, indicating a low likelihood of the fixation of alleles and no evidence of significant genetic drift impacts in either population. Additionally, the authors found no significant difference in the allelic richness between the sampled locations in the Philippines and Western Australia. In other words, the data tend to suggest that the species may have high genetic diversity. However, Williams et al. (2015) caution that due to the low fecundity and long generation time of the species, genetic responses to current exploitation rates (such as decreases in genetic diversity) may not yet be detectable. In fact, using
Overall, given the available and somewhat conflicting information, the level of genetic diversity needed to maintain the survival of the species and the current level of genetic diversity across the entire range of the species remains highly uncertain. Further morphological and genetic tests examining differences within and among populations are needed.
Regarding population structure, the available information indicates chambered nautilus populations are comprised mainly of male and mature individuals. Based on trapping data, including mark-recapture studies, male
The global abundance of
Recently, Williams et al. (2015) used genetic modelling to estimate median population sizes for
Overall, abundance information is extremely spotty and limited to only a select number of locations (see Table 3 in Miller 2017). Based on data from the 1980s, collected from sites off American Samoa, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and Vanuatu, the average number of
Regarding current trends in abundance,
In locations where fisheries have operated or currently operate, anecdotal declines and observed decreases in catches of nautilus species are reported (see Table 4 in Miller 2017). Citing multiple personal communications, the CITES (2016) proposal (to include all species of nautiluses in Appendix II of CITES) noted declines of
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information described above, we find that the latest scientific consensus is that
As described previously, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(c)) state that we must determine whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any one or a combination of the following factors: the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence. We evaluated whether and the extent to which each of the foregoing factors contribute to the overall extinction risk of the chambered nautilus. We considered the impact of all factors for which information is available. For each relevant factor, we also considered whether a particular impact is having a minor or significant influence on the species' status. A “significant” contribution is defined, for purposes of this evaluation, as increasing the risk to such a degree that
Chambered nautilus habitat, and in particular coral reefs, are impacted by a number of human activities. These activities include the harvest of coral reef species through use of destructive or unselective fishing practices, coastal development and deep-sea mining that can contribute to pollution and sedimentation of habitat, and changes in water temperature and pH caused by climate change. Below we briefly describe these various threats to the habitat of
Many coral reef species are harvested for the aquarium trade and to satisfy the high-end Asian food markets (CITES 2016). In addition to directly contributing to the loss of biodiversity on the reefs, some of the techniques used to obtain coral reef species for these industries can cause significant destruction to coral reef communities. For example, blast and poison fishing are two types of destructive and unselective fishing practices that are used to harvest coral reef species throughout much of the range of the chambered nautilus (WRI 2011). Figure 3 in Miller (2017) depicts the extent and severity of observed blast or poison fishing areas, which are primarily concentrated off the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
Blast fishing is particularly destructive as it not only destroys coral reefs but also indiscriminately kills their marine inhabitants. A “typical” blast will shatter corals and turn them into rubble within a 1 to 1.5 m diameter of the blast site, and can kill marine organisms, including invertebrates, within a 20 m radius (Pet-Soede and Erdmann 1998; Njoroge 2014). Although blast fishing is largely illegal, the use of this destructive practice still continues in many areas. For example, in a September 2016 article in the Jakarta Post, Amnifu (2016) reports that blast fishing, a common occurrence in East Nusa Tenggara waters, and particularly around Sumba Island, has recently expanded to parts of the Sawu Sea National Park's conservation area.
Because blast fishing is generally conducted in shallow reef waters (
Another primarily illegal fishing practice that destroys coral reefs is the use of cyanide, which is primarily deployed to stun and capture live reef fish. When exposed to cyanide, coral respiration rates decrease and can cease altogether, with corals observed expelling their zooxanthellae, resulting in bleaching and mortality events (Rubec 1986; Jones 1997). The practice of using cyanide to harvest reef fish dates back to the 1960s, where it was developed and commonly used in the Philippines, before spreading to Indonesia (CITES 2016). Similar to blast fishing, cyanide fishing is unlikely to result in direct mortality of
Overall, given the speculative effects of blast and cyanide fishing on nautilus populations, and the patchy and largely unknown distribution of the species and its habitat preferences, the best available information does not indicate that habitat degradation from the harvest of coral reef species and destructive and unselective fishing practices are likely significant threats to the species. Further research is needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the extent of nautilus habitat degradation and the impacts on the status of the species.
Evidence of the impacts of pollution and sedimentation on chambered nautilus habitat and the effects to the species is speculative or largely unavailable. For example, in their review of the nautilus CITES (2016) proposal, the fifth Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations expert advisory panel (FAO panel) hypothesized that an observed 60 percent decline in a local
Although deep sea mining may also contribute to the pollution of chambered nautilus habitat, it appears that the extent of this pollution, and its subsequent impacts on nautilus populations, may be largely site-specific. For example, in a study comparing bioaccumulation rates of trace elements between nautilus species located in a heavily mined location (
The biological impact of potential toxin and heavy metal bioaccumulation in chambered nautilus populations is unknown. Many of the studies that have evaluated metal concentrations in cephalopods examined individuals outside of the range of the chambered nautilus, with results that show that metal concentrations vary greatly depending on geography (Rjeibi et al. 2014; Jereb et al. 2015). As such, to evaluate the degree of the potential threat of bioaccumulation of toxins in chambered nautilus, information on concentrations of these metals from
Given the narrow range of temperature tolerance of the chambered nautilus, warming surface water temperatures due to climate change may further restrict the distribution of the species, decreasing the amount of suitable habitat (particularly in shallower depths) available for the species. Perhaps more concerning may be the effects of ocean acidification. In terms of ocean acidification, which will cause a reduction of pH levels and concentration of carbonate ions in the ocean, it is thought that shelled mollusks are likely at elevated risk as they rely on the uptake of calcium and carbonate ions for shell growth and calcification. However, based on available studies, the effects of increased ocean acidification on juvenile and adult mollusk physiology and shell growth are highly variable (Gazeau et al. 2013). For example, after exposure to severe CO
Regarding the impact of ocean acidification on calcification rates, which is important for the growth of chambered nautiluses, one relevant study looked at cuttlebone development in the cephalopod
While the above were only a few examples of the variable impacts of ocean acidification on mollusk species, based on the available studies, such as those described in Gazeau et al. (2013), it is clear that the effects are largely species-dependent (with differences observed even
Based on the best available information, the primary threat to the chambered nautilus is overutilization for commercial purposes—mainly, harvest for the international nautilus shell trade. Chambered nautilus shells, which have a distinctive coiled interior, are traded as souvenirs to tourists and shell collectors and also used in jewelry and home décor items (where either the whole shell is sold as a decorative object or parts are used to create shell-inlay designs) (CITES 2016). The trade in the species is largely driven by the international demand for their shells and shell products since fishing for nautiluses has been found to have no cultural or historical relevance (Dunstan et al. 2010; De Angelis 2012; CITES 2016; Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). Nautilus meat is also not locally in demand (or used for subsistence) but rather sold or consumed as a by-product of fishing for the nautilus shells (De Angelis 2012; CITES 2016). While all nautilus species are found in international trade,
Although most of the trade in chambered nautiluses originates from the range countries where fisheries exist or have existed for the species, particularly the Philippines and Indonesia, commodities also come from those areas with no known fisheries (such as Fiji and Solomon Islands). Other countries of origin for
Because harvest of the chambered nautilus is primarily demand-driven for the international shell trade, the intensive nautilus fisheries that develop to meet this demand tend to follow a boom-bust cycle that lasts around a decade or two before becoming commercially nonviable (Dunstan et al. 2010; De Angelis 2012; CITES 2016). Fishing for nautiluses is fairly inexpensive and not labor-intensive, requiring a fish trap baited with locally-available meat (
Commercial harvest of the species is presently occurring or has occurred in the Philippines, Indonesia, India and Papua New Guinea, and also potentially in China, Thailand and Vanuatu (CITES 2016). However, based on the number of commodities entering the international trade, we find that the best available information supports the conclusion that the Philippines and Indonesia have the largest commercial fisheries for chambered nautilus, with multiple harvesting sites throughout these nations (CITES 2016). Although information on specific harvest levels and the status of chambered nautilus populations within this portion of its range is limited, the best available data, discussed below, provide significant evidence of the negative impact of these fisheries and resulting overutilization of the species.
In the Philippines, the harvesting of chambered nautiluses appears to have no cultural or historical relevance other than as a source of local income for the shell trade, with meat either consumed by the fishermen or sold in local markets (del Norte-Campos 2005; Dunstan et al. 2010). Yet, anecdotal accounts of fishing for
Similarly, other nautilus fishing sites that were established in the late 1980s, including at Tawi Tawi (an island province in southwestern Philippines), Cagayancillo (an island in the Palawan province) and Cebu Strait (east of Tañon Strait), have also seen harvest crash in recent decades (Dunstan et al. 2010). More recently, in the Central Luzon region, Bulacan and Pampanga Provinces were formerly collection and trade sites for nautilus species; however, collectors and traders noted that the last shipments from these areas were in 2003 and 2007, respectively, indicating they are likely no longer viable harvesting sites (Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016).
The level of historical harvest (5,000 chambered nautilus individuals/year) that appeared to lead to local extirpations in Tañon Strait is being greatly exceeded in a number of other areas throughout the chambered nautilus' range in the Philippines. In Tibiao, Antique Province, in northwestern Panay Island, del Norte-Campos (2005) estimated annual yield of the chambered nautilus at around 12,200 individuals for the entire fishery (data from 2001 to 2002). In the Palawan nautilus fishery, 9,091 nautiluses were harvested in 2013 and 37,341 in 2014 (personal communication cited in CITES (2016)). This level of harvest is particularly concerning given the significant declines already observed in these fisheries. In fact, in four of the five main nautilus fishing areas in this province, Dunstan et al. (2010) estimated a decline in CPUE of the species ranging from 70 percent to 90 percent (depending on the fishing site) over the course of only 6 to 24 years. The one main fishing region in Palawan that did not show a decline was the municipality of Balabac; however, the authors note that this fishery is relatively new (active for less than 8 years), with fewer fishermen, and, as such, may not yet have reached the point where the population crashes or declines become evident in catch rates (Dunstan et al. 2010). Given that the estimated annual catches in the Balabac municipality ranged from 4,000 to 42,000 individuals in 2008 (Dunstan et al. 2010), this level of annual harvest, based on the trends from the other Palawan fishing sites (Dunstan et al. 2010), will likely lead to similar population declines and potential extirpations of chambered nautiluses in the near future.
In addition to the declines in harvest and CPUE of the species from observed fishing sites throughout the Philippines, the overutilization of
Off Indonesia, signs of decline and overutilization of chambered nautilus populations are also apparent. In fact, based on the increasing number of chambered nautilus commodities originating from Indonesia, it is suggested that nautilus fishing has potentially shifted to Indonesian waters because of depletion of the species in the Philippines (CITES 2016). According to trade data reported in De Angelis (2012), the Philippines accounted for 87 percent of the nautilus commodities in U.S. trade from 2005 to 2010, whereas Indonesia accounted for only 9 percent. However, with the significant decline of nautilus exports coming out of the Philippines in recent years (2010 to 2014), Indonesia has become a larger component of the trade, accounting for 42 percent of the nautilus commodities in 2014, while the Philippines has seen a decrease in their proportion, down to 52 percent (CITES 2016).
Similar to the trend observed in the Philippines, a pattern of serial depletion of nautiluses because of harvesting is emerging in Indonesia. Both fishermen and traders note a significant decline in the numbers of chambered nautiluses over the last 10 years, despite a prohibition on the harvest and trade of
The available U.S. trade data provide additional evidence of the overutilization and potential serial depletion of populations within Indonesia, although not yet as severe as what has been observed in the Philippines. Overall, based on data from the last decade, Indonesian export and re-export of nautilus commodities to the United States has decreased by 23 percent since 2005 (see Figure 5 in Miller (2017)) (CITES 2016); however, large declines were seen between 2006 and 2009 before smaller increases in the following years. As noted above, these trends likely reflect the depletion of nautilus populations in western Indonesian waters and a subsequent shift of fishing effort to eastern Indonesian waters in recent years to support the nautilus trade industry.
In India, CITES (2016) states that the chambered nautilus has been exploited for decades and is also caught as bycatch by deep sea trawlers. A 2007 survey aimed at assessing the status of protected species in the curio trade in Tamil Nadu confirmed the presence of
Interviews with the curio traders indicate that the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay, the island territories of Andaman and Lakshadweep, and Kerala are the main collection areas for the protected species sold in the curio trade (John et al. 2012). While the extent of harvest of
Although trend data are not available, the popularity of the species in the curio trade as well as information suggesting that the marketed shells are significantly smaller than wild-caught and, hence, likely belong to immature individuals, indicate that this level of utilization may have already negatively impacted the local populations within India. The continued and essentially unregulated fishing and selling of
In Papua New Guinea, most of the available information indicates that trade of chambered nautilus shells is primarily supplied from incidental collection of drift shells. CITES (2016) states that the species may be caught as bycatch in some deep-sea fisheries and also notes that new nautilus fishing sites may have recently become established in 2008. The extent of harvest of the species in these waters, however, is unknown.
Possible commercial harvest of the species has also been identified in East Asia (China, Hong Kong, and Chinese Taipei), Thailand, Vanuatu, and Vietnam. In East Asia, minimal numbers of nautilus shells are sold in art markets, home décor shops, small stores, and airport gift shops, with meat found in seafood markets (particularly in the south of China on Hainan Island, the large coastal cities of Fujian and Guangdong Provinces, and Chinese Taipei) (Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). There is also evidence of a small trade in live specimens for aquaria in Hong Kong; however, the origin of these live specimens is unclear (Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). While the CITES (2016) proposal suggests that nautilus harvest may occur on Hainan Island, we are aware of no information to confirm that a fishery exists.
In Thailand, nautilus experts note that targeted chambered nautilus fisheries have occurred and are still operating (NMFS 2014), with past observations of shells found in gift shops (CITES 2016); however, we are aware of no published information on the current intensity or duration of such harvest (or confirmation that the fishery is still occurring). Nautilus experts also note that targeted chambered nautilus fisheries have occurred and are occurring in Vanuatu (NMFS 2014), with shells sold to tourists and collectors (Amos 2007). While we are aware of no published information regarding the current intensity or duration of such harvest (or confirmation that the fishery is still occurring), available information suggests the fishery may have begun in the late 1980s. From March to June 1987, the Vanuatu Fisheries Department conducted a deep sea fishing trial, aimed at testing commercial fishing traps on the outer-reef slope of north Efate Island, Vanuatu (Blanc 1988). Results showed the successful capture of
In Vietnam, some of the nautilus shells observed for sale may be sourced from local harvest of the animal. For example, an interview with a Vietnamese seller revealed that his nautilus shells come from islands in Vietnam and that 1,000 shells a month are able to be acquired (of 5 to 7 inches in size; 127 to 178 mm) (Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). However, the species was not identified, nor was it clear whether the origin of the shells was from Vietnam (indicating potential harvest) or if the islands simply serve as transit points for the trade.
In our review of the available information, we also found no evidence of known local utilization or commercial harvest of the chambered nautilus in the following portions of the species' range: American Samoa, Australia, Fiji, or the Solomon Islands. While products that incorporate nautilus shells, such as jewelry and wood inlays, are sold to tourists in these locations, the nautilus parts appear to be obtained solely from the incidental collection of drift shells. In these areas, where the species is not subject to commercial harvest, populations appear stable (with the exception of Fiji; however, the threat in this case was not identified as overutilization—see
Overall, out of the 10 nations in which
As mentioned previously, the commercial harvest of the chambered nautilus is primarily demand-driven for the international shell trade. The Philippines and Indonesia appear to supply the majority of the nautilus products in the trade. In Indonesia, most of the networks that aid in the illegal trade of marine mollusks originate in Java and Bali, with the United States, China, and New Caledonia as main destinations (Nijman et al. 2015). While the extent of export from the Philippines and Indonesia is unknown, data collected from Indonesia over the past 10 years suggest the amounts are likely substantial. For example, based on seizure data from 2005 to 2013, over 42,000 marine mollusk shells protected under Indonesian law, including over 3,000 chambered nautiluses, were confiscated by Indonesian authorities (Nijman et al. 2015). At least two-thirds of the shells were meant to enter the international trade, with the largest volumes destined for China and the United States (Nijman et al. 2015). Between 2007 and 2010, De Angelis (2012), citing a personal communication, estimated that around 25,000 nautilus specimens were exported from Indonesia to China for the Asian meat market.
In addition to the United States and China, other major consumer destinations for nautilus commodities include Europe, the Middle East, and Australia, with suspected markets in South Africa, South America (Argentina), and Israel (Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). Freitas and Krishnasamy (2016) indicate that, in Europe, the trade and sale of nautiluses occur at fairly low levels and mainly involve whole nautilus shells. Their internet research and consultations indicate that the majority of Web sites selling nautilus products are located in France, Germany and the United Kingdom; however, details regarding the product, including species and origin of the nautilus, are often not provided (Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). Based on interviews with trade experts and online sellers, it appears that the Philippines is the main source of nautilus shells for the European trade (Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). Some German online sellers indicate that the wholesalers also receive imports from Thailand (Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016).
In the United States, the most recent 5 years of available trade data (2010 to 2014) reveal that around 6 percent of the imported commodities were whole shells (n = 9,076) and less than 1
We are aware of no information to indicate that disease is a factor that is significantly and negatively affecting the status of the chambered nautilus. Diseases in nautiluses are not well known, nor is there information to indicate that disease is contributing to population declines of the species. However, shells of
Regarding parasites, Carlson (2010) notes that newly collected nautilus individuals are usually heavily infested with the copepod
Chambered nautiluses may serve as prey to a number of teleost fish (such as triggerfish), octopuses, and sharks; however, predation rates appear to vary across the species' range (CITES 2016). For example, octopod predation rates on live nautiluses have been estimated at 1.1 percent in the Philippines, 4.5 to 11 percent in Indonesia, 2 to 8 percent in Papua New Guinea, 5 percent in American Samoa, and 3.2 percent on Australia's Great Barrier Reef, indicating that predation by octopuses likely occurs throughout the entire species' range (Saunders et al. 1991).
Recently, Ward (2014) analyzed the prevalence of shell breaks in nautiluses as an indicator of predation and found that those nautilus populations subject to fishing had a statistically significant higher number of major shell breaks compared to unfished populations. Specifically, Ward (2014) found that over 80 percent of mature
Predation is clearly evident in all sampled nautilus populations. It appears that predation rates may be substantially higher in those populations compromised from other threats (such as overutilization). This, in turn, exacerbates the risk that predation poses to those already vulnerable chambered nautilus populations, contributing significantly to their likelihood of decline and to the species' overall risk of extinction.
Based on the available data,
In Indonesia,
In the Philippines, shelled mollusks are protected from collection without a permit under Fisheries Administrative Order no. 168; however, it is unclear how this is implemented or enforced for particular species (CITES 2016). In Palawan Province, a permit is also required to harvest or trade the chambered nautilus, as it is listed as “Vulnerable” under Palawan Council for Sustainable Development Resolution No. 15-521 (CITES 2016). Freitas and Krishnasamy (2016) report that some municipalities in Cebu Province and the Panay Islands have local ordinances that prohibit the harvest of
In India,
In China,
In areas where trade of
Overall, given the ongoing demand for chambered nautilus products, the apparent disregard of current prohibition regulations by collectors and traders, lack of enforcement, and the observed declining trends in
Recognizing that the international trade is the clear driving force of the intense exploitation of nautiluses, in October 2016, the member nations to CITES agreed to add all nautilus species to Appendix II of CITES (effective January 2017). This listing means increased protection for
While the status review (Miller 2017) discusses ecotourism operations as a possible threat to nautilus species, the examples of these activities come entirely from Palau, where
Because of their keen sense of smell (Basil et al. 2000), chambered nautiluses are easily attracted to baited traps. Additionally, field studies indicate that nautiluses may also habituate to baited sites. For example, in a tag and release study conducted in Palau, the proportion of previously tagged animals over the trapping period increased in the baited traps, reaching around 58 percent in the last trap deployed (Saunders et al. in press). Given this behavior, nautilus populations, including
The ESA (section 3) defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” We define “foreseeable future” generally as the time frame over which identified threats can be reliably predicted to impact the biological status of the species. As mentioned previously, because a species may be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are available, or which operate across different time scales, the foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number of years.
For the assessment of extinction risk for the chambered nautilus, the “foreseeable future” was considered to extend out several decades (> 40 years). Given the species' life history traits, with longevity estimated to be at least 20 years, maturity ranges from 10 to 17 years, with very low fecundity (potentially 10-20 eggs per year with a 1-year incubation period), it would likely take more than a few decades (
In determining the extinction risk of a species, it is important to consider both the demographic risks facing the species as well as current and potential impacts of external threats that may affect the species' status. To this end, a demographic analysis was conducted for the chambered nautilus. A demographic risk analysis is essentially an assessment of the manifestation of past threats that have contributed to the species' current status and informs the consideration of the biological response of the species to present and future threats. This analysis evaluated the population viability characteristics and trends data available for the chambered nautilus, such as abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure and connectivity, and diversity, to determine the potential risks these demographic factors pose to the species. The information from this demographic risk analysis was considered alongside the information previously presented on threats to the species, including those related to the factors specified by the ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E) (and summarized in a separate Threats Assessment section below) and used to determine an overall risk of extinction for
Because the available data are insufficient to conduct a reliable quantitative population viability assessment (because there is, for example, sporadic abundance data, and uncertain demographic characteristics), the qualitative reference levels of “low risk,” “moderate risk” and “high risk” were used to describe the overall assessment of extinction risk in the Status Review. A species at a “low risk” of extinction was defined as one that is not at a moderate or high level of extinction risk. A species may be at low risk of extinction if it is not facing threats that result in declining trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. A species at low risk of extinction is likely to show stable or increasing trends in abundance and productivity with connected, diverse populations. A species is at a “moderate risk” of extinction when it is on a trajectory that puts it at a high level of extinction risk in the foreseeable future. A species may be at moderate risk of extinction because of projected threats or declining trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. A species with a high risk of extinction is at or near a level of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and/or diversity that places its continued persistence in question. The demographics of a species at such a high level of risk may be highly uncertain and strongly influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes. Similarly, a species may be at high risk of extinction if it faces clear and present threats (
Although the conclusions in the status review report do not constitute findings as to whether the species should be listed under the ESA (because that determination must be made by the
The global abundance of the chambered nautilus is unknown, with no available historical baseline population data. The species likely exists as small, isolated populations distributed throughout its range. However, abundance estimates of these fragmented populations are largely unavailable, as the species is difficult to survey. Currently, population size has been estimated for
If a population is critically small in size, chance variations in the annual number of births and deaths can put the population at added risk of extinction. Additionally, when populations are very small, chance demographic events can have a large impact on the population. However, the threshold for depensation in the chambered nautilus is unknown.
Populations of
While overall abundance is highly uncertain, the evidence indicates that the species exists as small and isolated populations throughout its range, making them inherently vulnerable to exploitation and depletion. Data suggest that many of these populations are in decline and may be extirpated in the next several decades. Taken together, this information indicates that
The current net productivity of
In terms of demographic traits, Saunders et al. (in press) suggest that a nautilus population at equilibrium would have a higher percentage of male (75 percent) and mature (74 percent) animals. Ratios that are significantly lower than these estimates suggest the population is in “disequilibrium” and likely portend declines in per capita growth rate. Saunders et al. (in press) further provides evidence that fished nautilus populations tend to show significant demographic differences in relative age class (
Chambered nautilus populations are extreme habitat specialists. The species is closely associated with steeply-sloped forereefs and muddy bottoms and is found in depths typically between 200 m and 500 m. Both temperature and depth are barriers to movement for
Regarding destruction of habitat patches, while anthropogenic threats, such as climate change and destructive
As noted above,
As discussed above, the most significant and certain threat to the chambered nautilus is overutilization through commercial harvest to meet the demand for the international nautilus shell trade. Out of the 10 nations where
As fishing for the species has no cultural or historical relevance, trade appears to be the sole driving force behind the commercial harvest and subsequent decline in
Additional threats to
Given the species' low reproductive output and overall productivity and existence as small and isolated populations, it is inherently vulnerable to threats that would deplete its abundance, with a very low likelihood of recovery or repopulation. While there is considerable uncertainty regarding the species' overall current abundance, the best available information indicates that
Currently, the best available information, though not free from uncertainties, does not indicate that the species is currently at risk of extinction throughout its range. The species is still traded in considerable amounts (upwards of thousands to hundreds of
Given the best available information, we find that
Having found that the chambered nautilus is likely to become in danger of extinction throughout its range within the foreseeable future, we next considered protective efforts as required under Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA. The focus of this evaluation is to determine whether these efforts are effective in ameliorating the threats we have identified to the species and thus potentially avert the need for listing.
As we already considered the effectiveness of existing regulatory protective efforts, discussed above in connection with the evaluation of the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, we consider other, less formal conservation efforts in this section. We identified a non-profit Web site devoted to raising the awareness of threats to the chambered nautilus (
While we find that these protective efforts will help increase the scientific knowledge about
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires that NMFS make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information including the petition, public comments submitted on the 90-day finding (81 FR 58895; August 26, 2016), the status review report (Miller 2017), and other published and unpublished information, and have consulted with species experts and individuals familiar with the chambered nautilus.
As summarized above and in Miller (2017), we assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors both individually and collectively and conclude that the species faces ongoing threats from overutilization and that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to ameliorate that threat. Evidence of the continued substantial trade in the species, establishment of new
We found no evidence of protective efforts for the conservation of the chambered nautilus that would eliminate or adequately reduce threats to the species to the point where it would no longer be in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we conclude that the chambered nautilus is not currently in danger of extinction, but likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout its range from threats of overutilization and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. As such, we have determined that the chambered nautilus meets the definition of a threatened species and propose to list it is as such throughout its range under the ESA.
Because we find that the chambered nautilus is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout its range, we find it unnecessary to consider whether the species might be in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range. We believe Congress intended that, where the best available information allows the Services to determine a status for the species rangewide, such listing determination should be given conclusive weight. A rangewide determination of status more accurately reflects the species' degree of imperilment, and assigning such status to the species (rather than potentially assigning a different status based on a review of only a portion of the range) best implements the statutory distinction between threatened and endangered species. Maintaining this fundamental distinction is important for ensuring that conservation resources are allocated toward species according to their actual level of risk. We also note that Congress placed the “all” language before the “significant portion of its range” phrase in the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” This suggests that Congress intended that an analysis based on consideration of the entire range should receive primary focus, and thus that the agencies should do a “significant portion of its range” analysis as an alternative to a rangewide analysis only if necessary. Under this reading, we should first consider whether listing is appropriate based on a rangewide analysis and proceed to conduct a “significant portion of its range” analysis if (and only if) a species does not qualify for listing as either endangered or threatened according to the “all” language. We note that this interpretation is also consistent with the 2014 Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of its Range” (79 FR 37578 (July 1, 2014)). That policy is the subject of pending litigation, including litigation against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, which ordered the policy vacated and is currently considering a motion for reconsideration.
Measures provided for species of fish or wildlife listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include development of recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); designation of critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); the requirement that Federal agencies consult with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat should it be designated (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). Certain prohibitions, including prohibitions against “taking” and import, also apply with respect to endangered species under Section 9 (16 U.S.C. 1538); at the discretion of the Secretary, some or all of these prohibitions may be applied with respect to threatened species under the authority of Section 4(d) (16 U.S.C. 1533(d)). Recognition of the species' plight through listing also promotes voluntary conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(4)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations require Federal agencies to confer with us on actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species proposed for listing, or that result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a proposed species is ultimately listed, Federal agencies must consult under Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) on any action they authorize, fund, or carry out if those actions may affect the listed species or its critical habitat and ensure that such actions are not likely to jeopardize the species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat should it be designated. At this time, based on the currently available information, we determine that examples of Federal actions that may affect the chambered nautilus include, but are not limited to: alternative energy projects, discharge of pollution from point and non-point sources, deep-sea mining, contaminated waste and plastic disposal, dredging, pile-driving, development of water quality standards, military activities, and fisheries management practices.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. 16 U.S.C. 1532(3). Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species. Designations of critical habitat must be based on the best scientific data available and must take into consideration the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. At this time, we find that critical habitat for the chambered nautilus is not determinable because
We are proposing to list the chambered nautilus as a threatened species. In the case of threatened species, ESA section 4(d) gives the Secretary discretion to determine whether, and to what extent, to extend the prohibitions of Section 9 to the species, and authorizes us to issue regulations necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species. Thus, we have flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor protective regulations, taking into account the effectiveness of available conservation measures. The 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect to threatened species, some or all of the acts which section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species. We are not proposing such regulations at this time, but may consider potential protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) for the chambered nautilus in a future rulemaking. In order to inform our consideration of appropriate protective regulations for the species, we seek information from the public on the threats to the chambered nautilus and possible measures for their conservation.
The intent of peer review is to ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information Quality Act (Public Law 106-554), is intended to enhance the quality and credibility of the Federal government's scientific information, and applies to influential or highly influential scientific information disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent peer review of the status review report. Independent specialists were selected from the academic and scientific community for this review. All peer reviewer comments were addressed prior to dissemination of the status review report and publication of this proposed rule.
To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and effective as possible, we solicit comments and suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, environmental groups, and any other interested parties. Comments are encouraged on all aspects of this proposal (See
As noted above, we have determined that critical habitat is not currently determinable for the chambered nautilus. To facilitate our ongoing review, we request information describing the quality and extent of habitat for the chambered nautilus, as well as information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat for the species in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. We note that based on the best available scientific information regarding the range of the chambered nautilus, waters of American Samoa may contain the only potential habitat for the species that is currently under U.S. jurisdiction. We request that specific areas that include the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, where such features may require special management considerations or protection, be identified. Areas outside the occupied geographical area should also be identified, if such areas themselves are essential to the conservation of the species and under U.S. jurisdiction. ESA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(g) specify that critical habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries or in other areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, we request information only on potential areas of critical habitat within waters under U.S. jurisdiction.
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to consider the “economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact” of designating a particular area as critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2). Section 4(b)(2) also authorizes the Secretary to exclude from a critical habitat designation any particular area where the Secretary finds that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless excluding that area will result in extinction of the species. To facilitate our consideration under Section 4(b)(2), we also request for any area that may potentially qualify as critical habitat information describing: (1) Activities or other threats to the essential features of occupied habitat or activities that could be affected by designating a particular area as critical habitat; and (2) the positive and negative economic, national security and other relevant impacts, including benefits to the recovery of the species, likely to result if particular areas are designated as critical habitat. We seek information regarding the conservation benefits of designating areas within waters under U.S. jurisdiction as critical habitat.
Data reviewed may include, but are not limited to: (1) Scientific or commercial publications; (2) administrative reports, maps or other graphic materials; (3) information received from experts; and (4) comments from interested parties.
Comments and data particularly are sought concerning: (1) Maps and specific information describing the amount, distribution, and use type (
A complete list of the references used in this proposed rule is available within the docket folder under “Supporting Documents” (
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the opinion in
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed rule does not have significant federalism effects and that a federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, this proposed rule will be given to the relevant governmental agencies in the countries in which the species occurs, and they will be invited to comment. As we proceed, we intend to continue engaging in informal and formal contacts with the states, and other affected local, regional, or foreign entities, giving careful consideration to all written and oral comments received.
Endangered and threatened species.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361
(e) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations to implement Framework Adjustment 2 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan. Framework Adjustment 2 was developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to improve and simplify the administration of the golden tilefish fishery. These changes include removing an outdated reporting requirement, proscribing allowed gear for the recreational fishery, modifying the commercial incidental possession limit, requiring commercial golden tilefish be landed with the head and fins attached, and revising how assumed discards are accounted for when setting harvest limits.
Comments must be received on or before November 7, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0024, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and by email to
Copies of Framework 2, and of the draft Environmental Assessment and preliminary Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), are available from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The EA/RIR is also accessible via the Internet at:
Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9341,
This action proposes regulations to implement Framework Adjustment 2 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council developed this framework to improve and simplify management measures for the golden tilefish fishery in Federal waters north of the Virginia/North Carolina border, consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The proposed management measures contained in Framework 2 are summarized below, with additional information and analysis are provided in the EA (see
The Council's original FMP for the golden tilefish fishery became effective in 2001 (66 FR 49136; September 26, 2001). The FMP established Total Allowable Landings (TAL) as the primary control on fishing mortality, and implemented a limited entry program with a tiered commercial quota allocation of the TAL. Amendment 1 to the FMP replaced the previous management system with an individual fishing quota (IFQ) system that allocated the TAL to individual quota shareholders rather than different permit categories (74 FR 42580; August 24, 2009). The Council developed this action to address several minor issues and inefficiencies that have been identified since the implementation of the IFQ system.
Commercial fishing vessels that land golden tilefish under the IFQ system are currently required to report each trip within 48 hours of landing through our IVR system. The Council originally created this reporting requirement when the fishery was managed under three permit categories, each with a sector-specific annual landings limit. The IVR system provided timely landing reports to track quota use and allowed managers to close a permit category if the annual landings cap was reached. When the Council changed the management of the fishery to an IFQ system, it retained the IVR system to allow additional monitoring of landings. Improvements in electronic dealer-reported landings and other data streams have rendered this IVR report redundant, and the data are no longer used to monitor quotas. We propose to eliminate this unnecessary reporting requirement.
In recent years, there have been reports of recreational fishermen using “mini-longline” gear with a large number of hooks to target tilefish. The Council is concerned the use of this gear could result in dead discards if fishermen catch more than the eight-fish per person bag limit using this type of gear setup. The Magnuson-Stevens Act list of authorized gear types at 50 CFR 600.75(v) already restricts the recreational fishery to rod and reel and spear gear. However, to avoid any potential confusion and clarify the amount of gear allowed, the Council has recommended and we propose that rod and reel with a maximum of five hooks per rod should be the only authorized recreational tilefish gear for use in the Mid-Atlantic. Anglers could use either a manual or electric reel.
The commercial tilefish fishery typically lands fish in a head-on, gutted condition. However, quotas and possession limits are in whole (round) weight. This requires the fishing industry to use a conversion factor to change landed weight to whole weight to comply with incidental possession limits and IFQ allocations. We proposed
When the Council created the tilefish IFQ system, it allocated a separate quota and commercial possession limit of 500 pounds (lb) (227 kilograms (kg)) to allow small landings of tilefish caught by non-IFQ vessels targeting other species. In recent years, there have been increasing reports of non-IFQ vessels specifically targeting golden tilefish to land the maximum commercial incidental possession limit. In an effort to ensure that the incidental fishery functions as originally intended, the Council approved changes to the commercial possession limit to ensure that vessels are targeting species other than golden tilefish. Through this action, we propose to modify the commercial golden tilefish landing limit to 500 lb (227 kg) or 50 percent, by weight, of all fish on board the vessel, whichever is less.
Tilefish IFQ allocation holders may authorize one or more vessels to land tilefish under their allocation. All golden tilefish landed by those vessels are then deducted from that allocation. We do not currently have a mechanism for a vessel to attribute golden tilefish landings from a single trip to more than one IFQ allocation. To create such a system would increase reporting burden on vessels and dealers, and add complexity to the IFQ accounting and cost recovery systems. In order to maintain simple and efficient administration of the IFQ fishery, we propose prohibiting a vessel from being authorized to land tilefish under multiple IFQ allocations on the same trip. A vessel could still change IFQ allocations over the course of the year while only being authorized by one IFQ allocation at a time. In addition, IFQ allocation holders could lease quota to maintain flexibility in harvesting their allocation.
The current process for setting annual specifications for the golden tilefish fishery deducts assumed discards of golden tilefish from the Annual Catch Target (ACT) to generate the TALs. The incidental sector is then allocated 5 percent of the TAL and the remaining 95 percent of the TAL is divided among the IFQ shareholders based on their individual quota holdings. However, discarding golden tilefish is prohibited in the IFQ fishery. As a result, observed discards are almost entirely from the incidental sector of the fishery. We propose to adjust the specification process to allocate the ACT between the incidental and IFQ sectors of the fishery using the 5- and 95-percent split. Sector-specific assumed discards would then be deducted to establish sector-specific TALs. The IFQ TAL would be allocated to the individual IFQ shareholders. This change would likely result in a lower TAL for the incidental fishery compared to the current system. However, the amount of golden tilefish discards is small and the incidental fishery typically lands 40 to 50 percent of the TAL. Therefore, this proposed change is not expected to negatively impact the incidental fishery.
Pursuant to section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council has deemed that this proposed rule is necessary and appropriate for the purpose of implementing Framework 2.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Tilefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Council prepared an analysis of the potential economic impacts of the action, which is included in the draft EA for this action and supplemented by information contained in the preamble of this proposed rule.
For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes, the NMFS has established a size standard for small businesses, including their affiliated operations, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as small if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The SBA has established size standards for all other major industry sectors in the U.S., including defining for-hire fishing firms (NAICS code 487210) as small when their receipts are less than $7.5 million. Using these definitions, during the 2013-2015 period, there are 4 large and 158 small commercial fishing entities that landed golden tilefish, and 210 small recreational for-hire firms that had a tilefish charter/party permit.
During 2013-2015, the 158 small commercial fishing entities had average annual receipts of $871,966, while their golden tilefish revenues averaged $35,068. Over the same period, the 210 small recreational for-hire firms had average annual receipts of $138,380 from all charter/party fishing activity for all species combined. Revenue data were not available by species, so it is not possible to determine how much is attributable to golden tilefish verses the numerous other fish species those recreational for-hire vessels may target.
The proposed management measures are not expected to change the amount of fishing effort or the spatial and/or temporal distribution of fishing effort in the tilefish fishery. These proposed changes would improve the management of the fishery, but have limited impact on the operation of the fishery. Some of the proposed measures would codify how the fishery already operates, including landing commercial tilefish with the head attached, limiting IFQ vessels to fish for one IFQ allocation at a time, and limiting recreational fishing to rod and reel gear. The proposed change to the incidental commercial possession limit could reduce landings for some vessels.
Analysis of data from 2011-2015 shows that for fishing trips that landed golden tilefish under the incidental possession limit, the tilefish comprised just 0.3 percent of the weight and 0.8 percent of the value of the total landings on those trips. The incidental landings of golden tilefish were approximately 34,000 lb (15,400 kg) worth $82,000 per year. If this proposed measure had been in place during that time, it would have prevented the landing of approximately 6,000 lb (2,700 kg) of golden tilefish worth $21,600 per year from trips where golden tilefish was more than 50 percent of the total catch. This reduction would have been spread over 28 fishing vessels that landed those trips, resulting in an average impact of less than $1,000 per vessel per year. Vessels potentially affected by this proposed measure may be able to offset
Given the low number of small entities involved in the tilefish fishery, and the small potential economic impact of the management measures proposed, this action will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This proposed rule would reduce a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0590. Public reporting burden for the IVR reporting requirement is estimated to average 2 minutes for each IVR response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The proposed change would remove this reporting burden. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(u) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) Land or possess golden tilefish in or from the Tilefish Management Unit, on a vessel issued a valid tilefish permit under this part, after the incidental golden tilefish fishery is closed pursuant to § 648.295(a)(3), unless fishing under a valid tilefish IFQ allocation permit as specified in § 648.294(a), or engaged in recreational fishing.
(viii) Land or possess golden or blueline tilefish in or from the Tilefish Management Unit, on a vessel issued a valid commercial tilefish permit under this part, that do not have the head and fins naturally attached to the fish.
(ix) Engage in recreational fishing for golden tilefish with fishing gear that is not compliant with the gear restrictions specified at § 648.296.
(a)
(1)
(ii) The Tilefish Monitoring Committee shall include the fishing mortality associated with the recreational fishery in its ACT recommendations only if this source of mortality has not already been accounted for in the ABC recommended by the SSC.
(iii) The Tilefish Monitoring Committee shall allocate 5 percent of the ACT to the incidental sector of the fishery and the remaining 95 percent to the individual fishing quota (IFQ) sector.
(a)
(b)
(2) The sum of the sector-specific TAL and the estimated sector-specific discards shall be less than or equal to the ACT for that sector of the fishery.
(c)
(d)
(a)
(2)
(b) * * *
(4)
(ii) An IFQ allocation permit holder who wishes to authorize an additional vessel(s) to possess golden tilefish pursuant to the IFQ allocation permit must send written notification to NMFS. This notification must include:
(A) The vessel name and permit number, and
(B) The dates on which the IFQ allocation permit holder desires the vessel to be authorized to land golden tilefish pursuant to the IFQ allocation permit.
(iii) A vessel listed on the IFQ allocation permit is authorized to possess golden tilefish pursuant to the subject permit, until the end of the fishing year or until NMFS receives written notification from the IFQ allocation permit holder to remove the vessel.
(iv) A single vessel may not be listed on more than one IFQ allocation permit at the same time.
(v) A copy of the IFQ allocation permit must be carried on board each vessel so authorized to possess IFQ golden tilefish.
The addition and revisions to read as follows:
(a)
(2)
(i) 500 lb (226.8 kg) of golden tilefish at any time, or
(ii) 50 percent, by weight, of the total of all species being landed; whichever is less.
(3)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(2) Any vessel engaged in recreational fishing may not retain golden tilefish, unless exclusively using rod and reel fishing gear, with a maximum limit of five hooks per rod. Anglers may use either a manual or electric reel.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice, request for comments.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is seeking public comment on revisions to the United States Standards for Grades of Pork Carcasses (pork standards). The last revision to the pork standards occurred in 1985 and the standards no longer accurately reflect value differences in today's pork products. Modern pork production is characterized by products with improved color and higher marbling content, two factors that have been consistently identified by researchers as the main components affecting pork eating quality.
Submit comments on or before December 22, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments electronically at
Bucky Gwartney, International Marketing Specialist, Standardization Branch, QAD, LPS, AMS, USDA; 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 3932-S, STOP 0258; Washington, DC 20250-0258; phone (202) 720-1424; or via email at
Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices” (7 U.S.C. 1622(c)). AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities. While the pork standards do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, they—along with other official standards—are maintained by USDA at
Official USDA grade standards and associated voluntary, fee-for-service grading programs are authorized under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621
USDA recognizes that the pork standards must be relevant to be of value to stakeholders and, therefore, recommendations for changes in the standards may be initiated by USDA or by interested parties at any time to achieve that goal. The pork standards were first developed in the early 1930s, with revisions over the years to reflect improvements made in the industry and changes in the marketplace. The current pork standards were last updated in 1985 and are based on a combination of muscle and fat thickness (including belly) that is then formulated into an expected percent yield. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the pork industry reacted to growing consumer demand for increased leanness of pork cuts, investing in changes to meet this demand primarily by means of improved genetics and swine diet formulations. By the early 2000s, the pork industry had become so proficient at producing consistently lean pork that additional leanness in pork would begin to degrade other consumer desires related to pork quality.
In contrast to decades past, modern consumers have shifted away from prioritizing leanness as the primary attribute in selecting pork for purchase. Instead, today's consumers seek high quality marbling (fat streaking within the cut of meat) for superior taste. In addition, consumers are increasingly demanding consistency in pork products in terms of other quality attributes, in particular in color of the lean.
Standards for grades enable buyers to obtain product that meets their individual needs, such as a restaurant choosing the highest quality pork to provide its customers a very consistent level of palatability. At the same time, standards for grades are important in transmitting information to producers to help ensure informed decisions are made. For example, the market preference and price paid for a particular grade of pork could be communicated to producers so they can adjust their production accordingly. In such a case, if the price premium being paid for a high grade of pork merits producers making the investments required in genetics and feeding to produce more of that grade, such
The underlying interest in a potential pork quality grading system is not new to the industry. Many studies have measured pork populations and measured their innate quality characteristics. A study by Cannon et. al., 1996,
Tentative standards for grades of pork carcasses and fresh pork cuts were issued by USDA in 1931 and slightly revised in 1933. New standards for grades of barrow and gilt carcasses were proposed by USDA in 1949. These standards represented the first application of objective measurements as guides to grades for pork carcasses. Slight revisions were made in the proposed standards prior to their adoption as the Official United Standards for Grades of Barrow and Gilt Carcasses, effective September 12, 1952.
The official standards were amended in July 1955, by changing the grade designations Choice No. 1, Choice No. 2, and Choice No. 3, to U.S. No. 1, U.S. No. 2, and U.S. No. 3, respectively. In addition, the backfat specifications were reworded slightly to reflect the reduced fat thickness requirements and to allow more uniform interpretation of the standards.
On April 1, 1968, the official standards were again revised to reflect the improvements made since 1955 in pork carcasses. The minimum backfat thickness requirement for the U.S. No. 1 grade was eliminated and a new U.S. No. 1 grade was established to properly identify the superior pork carcasses then being produced. The former No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 grades were renamed No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4, respectively. The former Medium and Cull grades were combined and renamed U.S. Utility. Also, the maximum allowable adjustment for variations-from-normal fat distribution and muscling was changed from one-half to one full grade to more adequately reflect the effect of these factors on yields of cuts.
In addition, the text of the “Application of Standards” section was reworded to more clearly define the grade factors and clarify their use in determining the grade. On January 14, 1985, the barrow and gilt carcass grade standards were once again updated to reflect improvements in pork carcasses and changes in the pork slaughter industry since 1968.
Between 1985 and today, the pork industry and the pork carcasses and products that it produces have undergone significant change. The pork industry reacted to the consumer demand for leaner pork by making changes in genetics and nutrition. Unfortunately, during that period when production strategies focused on producing leaner pork, marbling and color became less important. However, research indicates that today's consumers are interested in a more consistent pork product with a greater focus on marbling and the color of the products. The pork industry is working to meet this demand, again by making changes within the genetic and nutrition systems.
The use of the current USDA pork grade standards in an official capacity has been non-existent since the mid-1970s, and the ability to differentiate pork into quality groupings and values has been a critical missing link. In the absence of a meaningful USDA pork grade standard, pork packers and processors have taken the initiative to sort the darker colored, higher-marbling pork for many export markets where demand is extremely high and associated price premiums exist. They also have developed branded programs with selection criteria that use both color and marbling to identify premium pork products. These programs generally seek higher color scores (4-5) and marbling scores (3-5).
The U.S. is the second largest pork producing country in the world. Its production exceeds domestic consumption and, therefore, products need to be exported. Exports have continued to increase, with many markets demanding high quality pork that has certain color and marbling characteristics. These quality characteristics have been routinely used in processing plants to sort the higher quality pork for both export and for foodservice establishments that are demanding these traits. A revision to the grade standards is needed that reflects a new population of pork products that have better color and a higher marbling content, and is able to differentiate products into quality categories that can fill the demand in many different market segments. These two factors have been consistently identified by numerous researchers as the components affecting pork eating quality, as verified through checkoff-funded research.
In one consumer study (Pork Quality Insights, 2014
Recent research by Newman et al., 2015,
A study by Tonsor et al., 2013,
A working example of these criteria is the USDA beef quality grading system. The beef quality grade standards are widely adopted by the beef industry and are globally recognized. The USDA Prime and Choice beef grades are widely recognized by consumers, both domestically and abroad, as premium products that demand a higher value and also deliver a consistent eating experience. These grade groupings also result in an economic signal that is sent up and down the beef products chain, affecting the way producers implement genetic and nutritional changes. In addition, the adoption of instrument grading technologies has allowed the industry and USDA graders to stay in tune with plant line speeds and demands for consistent grade application.
The accurate measurement of color and marbling scores is important for a pork quality grading system. Published color and marbling scorecards and visual aids have been a primary subjective method for putting pork quality into categories, whether for research trials or at processing plants. Color evaluation has been performed using one of many objective color analyses. There has also been recent research on the ability to objectively measure pork quality through instrumentation. In a large modern pork processing facility, some form of instrumentation would be needed for pork quality evaluation at current line speeds.
The National Pork Board has indicated it is in the process of revising the current pork color and marbling score cards.
Printed below beginning with section 54.131 is the proposed text for a revised pork standard. While the preamble describing the history of the standards is not reprinted here, the body of the actual proposed standard (sections 54.131 through 54.135) is shown in its entirety. Should any updates to the pork standard occur, the preamble will be updated accordingly. The current standard, including the preamble, can be viewed at
As discussed, the proposed revised standard identifies marbling and color as the primary considerations for quality designations, instead of lean/fat and yield as exists in the current standard. Further, the proposed revised standard excludes the provision for grading of sow carcasses, maintaining the official standards for barrows and gilts only.
The standards for grades of pork are written primarily in terms of carcasses. However, they also are applicable to the grading of sides and primal cuts, such as the ham, loin, or shoulder. To simplify the phrasing of the standards, the words “carcass” and “carcasses” are used also to mean “side” or “sides.”
The official standards for pork carcass grades provide for segregation according to (a) class, as determined by the apparent sex condition of the animal at the time of slaughter, and (b) grade, which reflects the quality of lean in the carcass. A quality grade applied to a carcass will be associated with all cuts for that carcass, as long as the associated cuts are traceable through fabrication and labeling.
The five classes of pork carcasses, comparable to the same five classes of slaughter hogs, are: barrow, gilt, sow, stag, and boar. The official pork quality standards provide for the grading of barrow and gilt carcasses; grades are not provided for sow, stag, or boar carcasses.
(a) Barrow. A barrow is a male swine castrated when young and before development of the secondary physical characteristics of a boar.
(b) Gilt. A gilt is a young female swine that has not produced young and has not reached an advanced stage of pregnancy.
(c) Sow. A sow is a mature female swine that usually shows evidence of having reproduced or having reached an advanced stage of pregnancy.
(d) Boar. A boar is an uncastrated male swine.
(e) Stag. A stag is a male swine castrated after development or beginning of development of the secondary physical characteristics of a boar. Typical stags are somewhat coarse and lack balance—the head and shoulders are more fully developed than the hindquarter parts, bones and joints are large, the skin is thick and rough, and the hair is coarse.
(a) Grades for barrow and gilt carcasses are based on two general quality characteristics (1) the color of the exposed lean and (2) the amount of marbling associated with the lean.
(b) There are three general levels of quality recognized: (1) Prime, Choice, and Select. The quality (color and marbling) of the lean is best evaluated by a direct observation of its characteristics in the cut surface of the
(c) USDA uses photographs and other objective aids or devices designated by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in the correct interpretation and application of the standards.
(d) To determine the grade of a carcass, the
(1) Exposing a cross-section of the
(2) Exposing the
For barrow and gilt carcasses, the cut surface of the
For barrow and gilt carcasses, quality of the lean is evaluated by considering its color and marbling in a cut
The firmness requirement of slightly firm is the same for all grades and a minimum requirement for application of a grade, regardless of the extent to which marbling may exceed the minimum of a grade.
(a) The quality grade of a barrow or gilt carcass is determined on the basis of the following: lean color score and lean marbling score.
The relationship between color, marbling, and quality grade is shown in Table 1.
(b) The following descriptions provide a guide to the characteristics of barrow and gilt carcasses in each grade.
(1) USDA Prime—Barrow and gilt carcasses in this grade have at least a slightly firm lean, a color score of 4 or 5, and a marbling score of 4 or greater.
(2) USDA Choice—Barrow and gilt carcasses in this grade have at least a slightly firm lean, a color score of 3, and a marbling score of 2 or greater.
(3) USDA Select—Barrow and gilt carcasses in this grade have at least a slightly firm lean, a color score of 2, and a marbling score of 2 or greater.
AMS is soliciting comments from stakeholders about potential changes to the U.S. Standards for Grades of Pork Carcasses. This could also include any current and/or on-going research or industry practice that has relevance to this standard. AMS also invites comments about how those changes would be implemented in a voluntary pork grading system.
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 22, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by December 22, 2017.
Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164—South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522.
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995(Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Thomas P. Dickson, Director, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492, FAX: (202) 720-8435 or email
•
•
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Rebecca Hunt, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 205-3660, FAX: (202) 720-8435 or email:
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA); correction.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a document in the
Robin Meigel, USDA—Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 1568, Washington, DC 20250-1568, telephone (202) 720-9452 or email to
In the
Also, in the same FR Doc. 2017-22042, on page 47457, in the first column, under the heading “d. Application Part D—Additional Required Forms and Certifications,” fourth bullet from the top, the reference to the Rural Utilities Service “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matter—Primary Covered Transactions” is incorrect. The correct form title should read as follows: Form AD 1047 “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.”
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable October 16, 2017.
Gene Calvert at (202) 482-3586 (Indonesia, Korea, and Pakistan) or Jun Jack Zhao at (202) 482-1396 (Brazil and Taiwan), Office VII, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On September 26, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan, filed in proper form on behalf of DAK Americas LLC, Indorama Ventures USA, Inc. (Indorama), M&G Polymers USA, LLC, and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America (collectively, the petitioners).
On September 29, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of PET resin from Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing PET resin in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners to support their allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.
Because the Petitions were filed on September 26, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) for all investigations is July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
The product covered by these investigations is PET resin from Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations” in the Appendix to this notice.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the record of each concurrent AD investigation.
All submissions to the Department must be electronically filed using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing
The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of PET resin to be reported in response to the Department's questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to accurately report the relevant costs of production, as well as develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, parties may provide comments regarding which characteristics are appropriate to use as (1) general product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe PET resin, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take commercially meaningful physical characteristics into account. Interested parties may also comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
For the Department to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on November 6, 2017. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on November 16, 2017. As explained above, all comments and submissions to the Department must be electronically filed, via ACCESS, on the records of the concurrent Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan investigations.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that PET resin, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the Appendix to this notice. The petitioners provided their 2016 production of the domestic like product, and compared this to the estimated total production of
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that the petitioners have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are requesting the Department to initiate.
The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production, capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments; and declines in financial performance.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of PET resin from Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.
For all countries addressed in the Petitions, the petitioners based the U.S. price on export price (EP), using (1) average unit values (AUVs) of publicly available import data and (2) price quotes for PET resin produced in, and exported from, the relevant countries and offered for sale or actually sold in the United States.
For all countries addressed in the Petitions, the petitioners provided home market price information obtained through market research for PET resin produced, and offered for sale, in each country.
For all countries included in the Petitions, the petitioners provided information that sales of PET resin in each respective home market were made at prices below the cost of production (COP).
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses. For Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan, the petitioners calculated the COM based on the input factors of production and usage rates from U.S. producers of PET resin.
For all five countries, because certain home market prices fell below the COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, the petitioners calculated NVs based on CV.
Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of PET resin from Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV, pursuant to sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for PET resin from each of the countries included in the Petitions and covered by this initiation notice are: (1) 18.76 percent to 115.87 percent for Brazil,
Based upon the examination of the Petitions, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether or not imports of PET resin from Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
Numerous amendments to the AD and countervailing duty (CVD) laws were made under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015.
The petitioners named five companies in Brazil, seven companies in Indonesia, 16 companies in Korea, two companies in Pakistan, and eight companies in Taiwan as producers and/or exporters of PET resin.
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET on the seventh calendar day after placement of the CBP data on the records of these investigations. Interested parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for initial comments.
With respect to Pakistan, although the Department normally relies on import data from CBP to determine whether to select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in AD investigations, the petitioners identified only two companies as producers/exporters of PET resin from Pakistan: Novatex Limited and Pakistan Synthetics Limited. The petitioners relied on information from a subscription database of import shipments, additional research of publicly-available sources, and the petitioners' foreign market research report as support for their claim that
Comments must be electronically filed via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be successfully received, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the relevant date noted above. If respondent selection is necessary, we intend to make our decisions regarding respondent selection, based on comments received from interested parties and our analysis of the record information, within 20 days of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of PET resin from Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and/or Taiwan are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country. Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires, (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations, (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department, and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of the Department's regulations requires any party submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for such submissions and, in such a case, will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
As noted above, Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by these investigations is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 70, but not more than 88, milliliters per gram (0.70 to 0.88 deciliters per gram). The scope includes blends of virgin PET resin and recycled PET resin containing 50 percent or more virgin PET resin content by weight, provided such blends meet the intrinsic viscosity requirements above. The scope includes all PET resin meeting the above specifications regardless of additives introduced in the manufacturing process.
The merchandise subject to these investigations is properly classified under subheadings 3907.61.0000 and 3907.69.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding its administrative review of utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period or review (POR) February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017, based on the withdrawal of request for review.
Applicable October 23, 2017.
Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4852.
On February 8, 2017, the Department published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wind towers from the PRC for the above POR.
Pursuant to this request, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(c)(1)(i), on April 10, 2017, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wind towers from the PRC.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party 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 petitioner withdrew its request for review within 90 days of the publication date of the
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of wind towers from the PRC. 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 to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review in the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Final notice of implementation of user fees.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) solicited public feedback on its proposal to adjust the National Travel & Tourism Office (NTTO) 2017 I-94/APIS & SIAT data user fees for three programs after considering an independent cost study which concluded that ITA is not fully covering its costs for providing services under the current fee structure. Federal agencies are directed by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25 to ensure they recoup their costs when providing certain services. The NTTO provides key market intelligence to the government and travel industry to help U.S. businesses expand travel exports. ITA, through the NTTO, will continue to
The user fees schedule will be applicable November 22, 2017.
Richard Champley at (202) 482-4753 or
There are three main research programs through which the public may obtain data on international travelers to and from the United States additional to the free information already posted to the NTTO Web site. The proposed 2017 data fees are for (1) the monthly, quarterly and annual data from the APIS/I-92 Program, (2) the I-94 International Arrivals Program, and (3) the annual custom reports, data tables and files from the Survey of International Air Travelers (SIAT) Program.
Consistent with the guidelines in OMB Circular A-25 federal agencies are responsible for conducting a biennial review of all programs to determine the types of activities subject to user fees and the basis upon which user fees are to be set.
In addition to OMB Circular A-25, the NTTO also follows OMB Circular A-130, which mandates federal agencies to develop and to maintain a comprehensive set of information management policies for use across the government, and to promote the application of information technology to improve the use and dissemination of information in the operation of Federal programs. The role of NTTO is to enhance the international competitiveness of the U.S. travel and tourism industry and to increase its exports, thereby creating U.S. employment and economic growth. The primary functions of the NTTO are: (1) Management of the travel and tourism statistical system for assessing the economic contribution of the industry and providing the sole source for characteristic statistics on international travel to and from the United States; (2) design and administration of export expansion activities; (3) development and management of tourism policy, strategy and advocacy; and (4) technical assistance for expanding this key export (international tourism) and assisting in domestic economic development.
The NTTO has provided the I-94/APIS & SIAT data for many years and has developed a subscriber base for each of these programs. The fees collected for these reports pay for ITA costs to develop the reports and support research for the continuation and expansion of improvements to the data provided by NTTO. In 2016, the NTTO issued Fee Schedule increases for the APIS/I-92 program, the I-94 International Arrivals Program and the SIAT Program. The contractor prices are six percent greater than the 2016 contract prices for the SIAT base program and 27 percent greater for the I-94 program. This increase is due in part to increased quality management checks associated with this program. Additionally, there is a nearly 30 percent increase in the cost for custom reports for both programs. Custom reports costs increased because of the necessity to combine multiple years of sample, as well as incorporate additional data in Table 1A and Table 1. Fees for the APIS/I-92 program are being increased to help offset an ITA budget cut and the much larger increases in costs to the I-94 and SIAT program, because all three programs are interdependent upon one another and used to provide the SIAT data.
Additionally, for 2017 data, to ameliorate the increased costs while keeping the program fees as low as possible, ITA proposed to cut the SIAT sample from 96,000 surveys in 2016 to 77,000 surveys in 2017, but because of the overwhelming response to the
ITA solicited public comment on the proposed revisions to the user fees during a 30-day period from June 26, 2017 to July 26, 2017 (82 FR 28820, June 26, 2017). Over 40 comments were received in response to the proposal. The individual comments can be viewed on the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
The NTTO wants to thank everyone who responded to this notice and greatly appreciates the feedback and concerns. The NTTO is in the process of preparing a request for information to solicit ideas from the industry to improve the SIAT program.
Fee Schedule increases for the APIS/I-92 program, the I-94 International Arrivals Program and the Survey of International Air Travelers (SIAT) Program are shown in the tables below. All fees shown are 15 percent greater in 2017 than in 2016, except for certain SIAT reports as explained above. For the I-94 program, ITA has eliminated the print files and will only provide a PDF and Excel file to save costs. The custom reports, data tables, and files will also see a 15 percent fee increase in 2017.
Please refer to the
For the reasons provided above, ITA believes its revised fees are consistent with the objective of OMB Circular A-25 to “promote efficient allocation of the Nation's resources by establishing charges for special benefits provided to the recipient that are at least as great as costs to the Government of providing the special benefits.” OMB Circular A-25(5) (b). For 2017 data, the fees will be increased as proposed. ITA will continue to reassess the fee schedule, in accordance with OMB Circular A-25, at least every two years thereafter.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits and permit amendments or modifications.
Notice is hereby given that permits or permit amendments have been issued to the following entities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Erin Markin (File No. 17304-03); Courtney Smith (File No. 21143), Lisa Lierheimer (File No. 21486), Sara Young (File Nos. 20466, 21006, 21018, 21158), and Shasta McClenahan (File Nos. 16609-01, 17115-05 and 20951) at (301) 427-8401.
Notices were published in the
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.
The requested permits have been issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel (AP) will meet to discuss proposed changes to management of the snapper grouper fishery, provide information, and receive updates. See
The Snapper Grouper AP meeting will be held Wednesday, November 8, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. and from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. on Thursday, November 9, 2017.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email
The Snapper Grouper AP will review and provide recommendations on developing amendments to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (recreational and commercial visioning amendments and best fishing practices and recreational reporting amendment); provide information to develop fishery performance reports on black sea bass and vermilion snapper; and receive updates on items including stock assessments, recreational data reporting projects, a proposed moratorium on for-hire permits, and other items.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of a public meetings and hearing.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a CNMI joint advisory group meeting consisting of the Council's CNMI Regional Ecosystem Advisory Committee (REAC), CNMI Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Advisory Panel (AP) and CNMI members of its Plan Team, Fishing Industry Advisory Committee (FIAC), Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and Marine Planning and Climate Change Committee (MPCCC); and a Guam joint advisory group meeting consisting of the Council's Guam REAC and Guam members of its Plan Team, FIAC, SSC, and MPCCC to discuss and make recommendations on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.
The CNMI joint advisory group will meet on Wednesday, November 15, 2017, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and the Guam joint advisory group will meet on Friday, November 17, 2017, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. All times listed are local island times.
For specific times and agendas, see
The CNMI joint advisory group meeting will be held at Saipan Fiesta Resort and Spa, P.O. Box 50129, Saipan, MP 96950, telephone: (670) 234-6412. The Guam joint advisory group meeting will be held at Hilton Guam Resort and Spa, 202 Hilton Road, Tumon Bay, Guam 96913, telephone: (671) 646-1835.
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (808) 522-8220.
Public comment periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
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 Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) to incidentally harass, by Level A and Level B harassment, marine mammals during construction activities associated with the Sand Point City Dock Replacement Project in Sand Point, Alaska.
This Authorization is valid from August 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019.
Rob Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. An electronic copy of ADOT&PF's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review and signed a Categorical Exclusion memo in September 2017.
On September 16, 2016, NMFS received an application from ADOT&PF for the taking of marine mammals incidental to replacing the city dock in Sand Point, Alaska. On April 11, 2017, ADOT&PF submitted a revised application that NMFS determined was adequate and complete. ADOT&PF proposed to conduct in-water activities that may incidentally take, by Level A and Level B harassment, nine species of marine mammals. Proposed activities included as part of the Sand Point City Dock Replacement Project with potential to affect marine mammals include impact hammer pile driving and vibratory pile driving and removal. Neither ADOT&PF nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
We provided a description of the proposed action in our
ADOT&PF plans to construct a new dock in Sand Point, Alaska. Impact and vibratory driving of piles and vibratory pile removal is expected to take place over a total of approximately 32 working days within a 5-month window from August 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. However, due to the potential for unexpected delays, up to 40 working days may be required. The new dock would be supported by approximately 52 round, 30-inch-diameter, 100-foot-long permanent steel pipe piles. Fender piles installed at the dock face would consist of 8 round, 24-inch-diameter, 80-foot-long permanent steel pipe piles. The single mooring dolphin would consist of 3 round, 24-inch-diameter, 120-foot-long permanent battered steel pipe piles. This equates to a total of 63 permanent piles. Up to 90 temporary piles would be installed and removed during construction of the dock and would be either H-piles or pipe piles with a diameter of less than 24 inches. Table 1 provides detailed information regarding pile size and type as well as effort required for installation and removal.
In-water pile driving and extraction activities are expected to take place over a total of approximately 32 working days within a 5-month window from August 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. The issued IHA will be valid for a period of one year in case there are delays. Table 2 illustrates the anticipated number of days required for installation and removal of various pile types. Pile driving and removal may occur for up to 4.5 hours per day. Total driving time for the planned project would consist of approximately 22 hours of impact driving and 85 hours of vibratory driving and removal.
The Sand Point city dock is located in the city of Sand Point, Alaska, on the northwest side of Popof Island, in the western Gulf of Alaska. Sand Point is the largest community in the Shumagin Islands. See Figure 1-1 and 1-2 in ADOT&PF's Application.
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to ADOT&PF was published in the
We have reviewed the applicants' species information—which summarizes available information regarding status and trends, distribution
Table 3 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence near Sand Point and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population, is considered in concert with known sources of ongoing anthropogenic mortality to assess the population-level effects of the anticipated mortality from a specific project (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats. For status of species, we provide information regarding U.S. regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA. Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock.
All values presented in Table 3 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 2016 SARs (Muto
The effects of underwater noise from construction activities for the project have the potential to result in injury and behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the project area. The
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through the IHA, which informed both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only means of take expected to result from these activities. 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). Level A and Level B harassment is expected to occur and is authorized in the numbers identified below.
Take has been authorized by Level B harassment in the form of behavioral disturbance for harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, killer whale, humpback whale, fin whale, gray whale, minke whale, Steller sea lion, and harbor seal near the project area that may result from impact and vibratory pile driving activities. Level A harassment in the form of PTS resulting from impact driving has also been authorized for small numbers of harbor porpoise, humpback whale, and harbor seal.
Take estimates are generally 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 (
In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider the sound field in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area. We first provide information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the method of estimating potential incidents of take.
We use the following generic sound exposure thresholds (Table 4) to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by behavioral harassment (Level B) might occur.
We use NMFS' acoustic criteria (NMFS 2016a, 81 FR 51694; August 4, 2016), which establishes sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by auditory injury,
The User Spreadsheet accounts for effective hearing ranges using Weighting Factor Adjustments (WFAs), and
The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project (
• The relatively shallow waters in the project area (Taylor
• Land forms around Sand Point that would block the noise from spreading; and
• Vessel traffic and other commercial and industrial activities in the project area that contribute to elevated background noise levels.
Sound would likely dissipate relatively rapidly in the shallow waters over soft seafloors in the project area. Additionally, portions of Popof Island and Unga Island would block much of the noise from propagating to its full extent through the marine environment.
In order to calculate distances to the Level A and Level B sound thresholds for piles of various sizes being used in this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations. Note that piles of differing sizes have different sound source levels.
Empirical data from recent ADOT&PF sound source verification (SSV) studies at Kake, Ketchikan, and Auke Bay, were used to estimate sound source levels (SSLs) for vibratory and impact installation of 30-inch steel pipe piles (MacGillivray
To derive source levels for vibratory driving of 30-in piles, NMFS used summary data from Auke Bay and Ketchikan as described in a comprehensive summary report by Denes
For vibratory driving of 24-inch steel dolphin and fender piles, data from three projects (two projects in Washington and one in California) were reviewed. The Washington marine projects at the Washington State Ferries Friday Harbor Terminal (WSDOT, 2010) and Naval Base Kitsap, Bangor waterfront (Navy 2012), only measured one pile each, but reported similar sound levels of 162 dB RMS and 159 dB RMS (range 157 dB to 160 dB), respectively. Because only two piles were measured in Washington, the California project was also included in the analysis. The California project was located in a coastal bay and reported a “typical” value of 160 dB RMS with a range 158 to 178 dB RMS for two piles where vibratory levels were measured. Caltrans summarized the project's RMS level as 170 dB RMS, although most levels observed were nominally 160 dB. Although the data set is limited to these projects, close agreement of the levels (average project values from 159 to 162 dB at 10 meters) resulted in NMFS selecting a source level of 161 dB RMS. Note that a fourth project at NBK, Bangor drove 16-inch hollow steel piles, with measured levels similar to those for the 24-inch piles. Therefore, NMFS elected to use the same 161 dB RMS as a source level for vibratory driving of 18-inch steel piles. NMFS believes it appropriate to use source levels from the next largest pile size when data are lacking for specific pile sizes, as is the case with the18-inch piles under consideration.
ADOT&PF suggested a source level of 142 dB RMS for vibratory driving of steel H-piles. However, NMFS found this data to be inconsistent with other reported values and opted to use a value of 150 dB which was derived from summary data pertaining to vibratory driving of 12-inch H piles (Caltrans 2015).
In the application, ADOT&PF derived source levels for impact driving of 30-inch steel piles by averaging the individual mean values associated with impact driving of the same size and type from Auke Bay, Kake, and Ketchikan (Denes
For the 24-inch impact pile driving, NMFS used data from a Navy (2015) study of proxy sound source values for use at Puget Sound military installations. The Navy study recommended a value of 193 dB RMS which was derived from data generated by impact driving of 24-inch steel piles at the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal Preservation Project and the Friday Harbor Restoration Ferry Terminal Project. NMFS found this estimated source level to be appropriate.
The formula below is used to calculate underwater sound propagation. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
NMFS typically recommends a default practical spreading loss of 15 dB per tenfold increase in distance. ADOT&PF analyzed the available underwater acoustic data utilizing the practical spreading loss model.
Pulse duration from the SSV studies described above are unknown. All necessary parameters were available for the SEL
To derive Level A harassment isopleths associated with the impact driving of 30-inch piles, ADOT&PF utilized a single strike SEL of 179.3 dB and assumed 1000 strikes per pile for 1 to 4 piles per day. For 24-inch dolphin piles, ADOT&PF used a single strike SEL of 181 dB and assumed 400 strikes at a rate of 1 or 2 piles per day. For 24-inch fender piles, ADOT&PF used the same single strike SEL of 181 dB and assumed 120 strikes per pile and 1 to 4 pile installations per day. To calculate Level A harassment isopleths associated
Note that the actual area ensonified by pile driving activities is significantly constrained by local topography relative to the total threshold radius. The actual ensonified area was determined using a straight line-of-sight projection from the anticipated pile driving locations. The corresponding areas of the Level A and Level B ensonified zones for impact driving and vibratory installation/removal are shown in Table 8.
Potential exposures to impact and vibratory pile driving noise for each threshold were estimated using local marine mammal density datasets where available and local observational data.
There currently is no information on the presence or abundance of Dall's porpoises in the Shumagin Islands. No sightings of Dall's porpoises have been documented in Humboldt Harbor and they are not expected to occur there (HDR 2017). However, individuals may occur in the deeper waters north of Popof Island or in Popof Strait, west of the Sand Point Airport. These porpoises have been sighted infrequently on research cruises heading in and out of Sand Point in deeper local waters (Speckman, Pers. Comm.). Dall's porpoise are non-migratory; therefore, exposure estimates are not dependent on season. Exposure of Dall's porpoise to noise from impact hammer pile installation is unlikely, as they are not expected to occur within the 1,738 meter Level B harassment zone. Similarly, we do not anticipate Dall's porpoise would be exposed to noise in excess of the Level A harassment threshold, which would be located at a maximum distance of 1,699 meters. It is possible, however, that they would occur in the larger Level B zone associated with vibratory driving of 30-inch (up to 10,970 meters) and 24-inch piles (up to 5,420 meters). Over the course of 40 days in which vibratory driving will be employed, NMFS conservatively anticipates no more than one observation of a Dall's porpoise pod in these Level B vibratory harassment zones. With an average pod size of 3.7 (Wade
There are no reports of harbor porpoises or harbor porpoise densities in the Shumagin Islands. It is reasonable to assume that they would occur in the vicinity of Popof and Unga Islands given that they are common in the Gulf of Alaska and their preferred habitat consists of coastal waters of 100 meters or less (Hobbs and Waite 2010). Based on the known range of the Gulf of Alaska stock, only six sightings of singles or pairs during 110 days of monitoring of the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements project, and occasional sightings during monitoring of projects at other locations on Kodiak Island, it is assumed that harbor porpoises could be present on an intermittent basis.
Harbor porpoises are non-migratory; therefore, exposure estimates are not dependent on season. NMFS conservatively estimates harbor porpoise could be exposed to construction-related in-water noise on two out of every three construction days. Harbor porpoises in this area have a mean group size of 1.82 (Watwood and Buonantony, 2012). Therefore, NMFS authorizes the take of 49 harbor porpoises as shown below.
Sighting every 0.667 days * 40 days of exposure * 1.82 group size = 49 (48.55 rounded up).
During impact installation of piles, the Level A harassment isopleth for harbor porpoises extends up to 1,699 meters when a maximum of four 30-inch piles are installed on the same day. Given that harbor porpoises prefer near-shore waters, we anticipate that it is possible for up to one-third of the harbor porpoise sighting to occur in a Level A harassment zone. Therefore, of the 49 authorized takes, 16 will occur within a Level A harassment isopleth and 33 will occur within a Level B harassment isopleth.
Line transect surveys conducted in the Shumagin Islands between 2001 and 2003 did not record any resident killer whales, but did record a relatively high abundance of transient killer whales (Zerbini
However, killer whales generally travel in pods, or groups of individuals. The average pod size for transient killer whales is four individuals (Zerbini
Surveys from 2001 to 2004 estimated humpback whale abundance in the Shumagin Islands at between 410 and 593 individuals during the summer feeding season (July-August; Witteveen
Exposure of humpback whales to Level A and Level B harassment noise levels is possible in August and, to a lesser extent, in September. Exposure is unlikely between October and December because humpback whale abundance is low during late fall and winter. Humpback whales, when present, are unlikely to enter Humboldt Harbor or approach the City of Sand Point, but would instead transit through Popof Strait or feed in the deeper waters off the airport, between Popof and Unga islands (HDR 2017). Harassment from pile installation is possible in waters between Popof and Unga islands, including Popof Strait. Because we do not know exactly when construction might occur, we will use the updated summer density estimate (and our only density estimate) of 0.04 whales/km
At a density of 0.04 whales/km
A subset of the 32 humpback whales potentially exposed to harassment noise levels may enter the Level A harassment zone, which extends 1,426 meters assuming an optimal productivity of driving four 30-inch piles per day; 633 meters when driving two 24-inch dolphins; and 450 meters when driving four 24-inch fenders. NMFS has again added a 25 percent contingency and will assume 16.25 days of 30-inch impact pile driving, 2.5 days of 24-inch dolphin installation and 2.5 days of 24-inch fender installation. Note that when estimating Level A take, NMFS conservatively defaulted to the Level A isopleth and corresponding area associated with maximum number of piles that can be driven each day for each pile size. We anticipate approximately 1.84 humpback whales (
Humpback whales found in the Shumagin Islands are predominantly members of the Hawaii DPS, which are not listed under the ESA. However, based on a comprehensive photo-identification study, members of both the Western North Pacific DPS (ESA-listed as endangered) and Mexico DPS (ESA-listed as threatened) are known to occur in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Members of different DPSs are known to intermix on feeding grounds; therefore, all waters off the coast of Alaska should be considered to have ESA-listed humpback whales. According to Wade
Vessel-based line-transect surveys of coastal waters between Resurrection Bay and the central Aleutian Islands were completed in July and August from 2001 to 2003 (Zerbini
There are no population estimates for minke whales in Alaska; however, nearshore aerial surveys of the western Gulf of Alaska took place between 2001 and 2003. These surveys estimated the minke whale population in that area at approximately 1,233 individuals (Zerbini
Gray whales could potentially migrate through the area between March through May and November through January. Gray whale presence near Sand Point and in Humboldt Harbor is rare and unlikely to occur during the construction period. As such, exposure of gray whales to noise from impact hammer pile installation is unlikely, as they are not expected to occur within the 1,426 meter harassment zone. Harassment from vibratory pile installation is possible in the deeper water north of Popof Strait. Because there are no density estimates for the area and the rarity of gray whales within the project area, NMFS conservatively estimates that gray whales will not be observed more than one time during the construction period. Multiplying the one potential observation by the average pod size of 2.4 (Rugh
The number of unique individuals used to calculate take was based on information reported by the nearby seafood processing facility. It is estimated that about 12 unique individual sea lions likely occur in Humboldt Harbor each day during the pollock fishing seasons (HDR 2017). It is assumed that Steller sea lions may be present every day, and that take will include multiple harassments of the same individual(s) both within and among days. It is also assumed that 12 unique individual sea lions occur in Humboldt Harbor each day and could potentially be exposed to Level B harassment over 40 days of construction. Given that the project area is located within the aquatic zones (
Therefore, we authorize the Level B take of 960 Steller sea lions. No Level A take is anticipated as the Level A isopleths are smaller than the 100 meter shutdown zone.
Anecdotal observations indicate that harbor seals are uncommon in Humboldt Harbor proper (HDR 2017). However, they are expected to occur occasionally in the project area. The Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project on Kodiak Island recorded 13 single sightings of harbor seals during 110 days of monitoring. Although the harbor seal stock is different at Kodiak (South Kodiak stock) and the project sites are somewhat dissimilar, NMFS used this information to conservatively estimate that one harbor seal could be present near Sand Point on any given day. An aerial haulout survey in 2011 estimated that 15 harbor seals occupy the survey unit along the south coast of Popof Island (London
During impact installation of 30-inch piles, the Level A harassment isopleth for harbor seals extends out to a maximum distance of 763 meters on days when four piles are driven; out to 339 meters when two 24-inch dolphins are installed on the same day; and out to 241 meters when four fenders are installed on a single day. Harbor seals often act curious toward on-shore activities and are known to approach humans, lifting their heads from the water to look around. Given that harbor seals are likely to be found in the near-shore environment, we are authorizing limited Level A take since the impact pile driving injury zones can extend well beyond the 100 meter shutdown zone. We anticipate that up to one-third of harbor seal takes would be by Level A harassment resulting in 27 authorized Level A and 53 authorized Level B takes of harbor seals.
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. 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 balance 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 which considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as well as the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented; and the likelihood of effective implementation,
In addition to the measures described later in this section, ADOT&PF will employ the following standard mitigation measures:
(a) Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, and marine mammal monitoring team, prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures, and;
(b) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (
(c) Work will only occur during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted.
The following measures would apply to ADOT&PFs mitigation requirements:
To account for potential variations in daily productivity during impact installation, isopleths were calculated for different numbers of piles that could be installed each day. Therefore, should the contractor expect to install fewer piles in a day than the maximum anticipated, a smaller Level A shutdown zone reflecting the number of piles driven would be required to avoid take. Furthermore, if the first pile is driven and no marine mammals have been observed within the radius of corresponding Level A zone, then the Level A radius for the next pile shall be decreased to next largest Level A radius. This pattern shall continue unless an animal is observed within the most recent shutdown zone radius, at which that specific shutdown radius shall remain in effect for the rest of the workday. Additionally, if piles of different sizes are installed in a single day, the size of the monitored Level A zone for all installed piles will default to the isopleth corresponding to the largest pile being driven that day. Level A zones will be rounded up to the nearest 10 m and are depicted in Table 9.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the planned mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable adverse 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 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 action area (
• 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.
Monitoring will be conducted by qualified marine mammal observers (MMOs), who are trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:
• Independent observers (
• At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer;
• Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior;
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary; and
• NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
In order to effectively monitor the pile driving monitoring zones, two MMOs will be positioned at the best practical vantage point(s). The monitoring position may vary based on pile driving activities and the locations of the piles
Observers will be on site and actively observing the shutdown and disturbance zones during all pile driving and extraction activities. Observers will use their naked eye with the aid of binoculars, big-eye binoculars or spotting scope to search continuously for marine mammals during all pile driving and extraction activities.
The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
• If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the observers' ability to make observations within 100 m of the pile driving activity (
• If a marine mammal authorized for Level A take is present within the Level A harassment zone, a Level A take would be recorded. If Level A take reaches the authorized limit, then pile installation would be stopped as these species approach the Level A harassment area to avoid additional take of these species;
• If a marine mammal authorized for Level B take is present in the Level B harassment zone, pile driving activities or soft-start may begin and a Level B take would be recorded. Pile driving activities may occur when these species are in the Level B harassment zone, whether they entered the Level B zone from the Level A zone (if relevant), shutdown zone or from outside the project area. If Level B take reaches the authorized limit, then pile installation would be stopped as these species approach to avoid additional take of these species;
• If any marine mammal species for which take is not authorized or if a species for which authorization has been granted but the number of authorized takes has been met enters or approaches the ZOI all activities shall be shut down until the animal is seen leaving the ZOI or it has not been seen in the shutdown zone for 30 minutes for medium and large-sized odontocetes and mysticetes and 15 minutes for small cetaceans and pinnipeds;
• If any marine mammal species not authorized for take are encountered during activities and are likely to be exposed to Level B harassment, then ADOT&PF must stop pile driving activities and report observations to NMFS' Office of Protected Resources;
• When a marine mammal is observed, its location will be determined using a rangefinder to verify distance and a GPS or compass to verify heading;
• The MMOs will record any authorized cetacean or pinniped present in the relevant injury zone. The Level A zones are shown in Table 9;
• The MMOs will record any authorized cetacean or pinniped present in the relevant disturbance zone. The Level B zones are shown in Table 10;
• Ongoing in-water pile installation may be continued during periods when conditions such as high sea state, rain, glare, or other conditions prevent effective marine mammal monitoring of the entire Level B harassment zone. MMOs would continue to monitor the visible portion of the Level B harassment zone throughout the duration of driving activities; and
• At the end of the pile driving day, post-construction monitoring shall be conducted for 30 minutes beyond the cessation of pile driving.
Observers are required to use data forms approved by NMFS. Among other pieces of information, ADOT&PF will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the ADOT&PF will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take. At a minimum, the following information will be collected on the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
• Detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any;
• Weather parameters (
• Water conditions (
• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity;
• Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
ADOT&PF will notify NMFS prior to the initiation of the pile driving activities and will provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 90 days of the conclusion of the construction work. This report will detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed, including the total number extrapolated from observed animals across the entirety of relevant monitoring zones. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days of submission of the draft final report, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 3. There is little information about the nature of severity of the impacts or the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis for this activity.
Pile driving and extraction activities associated with the Sand Point City Dock Replacement Project, as outlined previously, have the potential to injure, disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, Level A harassment (injury) in the form of PTS may occur to a limited numbers of three marine mammal species while a total of nine species could experience Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance). Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in Level A or Level B ensonified zones when pile driving or removal is under way.
No mortality is anticipated to result from this activity. Limited take of three species of marine mammal by Level A harassment (injury) is authorized due to potential auditory injury (PTS) that cannot reasonably be prevented through mitigation. The marine mammals authorized for Level A take (27 harbor seals, 16 harbor porpoises, and 2 humpback whales) are estimated to experience PTS if they remain within the outer limits of a Level A harassment zone during the entire time that impact pile driving would occur during a single day. Marine mammal species, however, are known to avoid areas where noise levels are high (Richardson
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
ADOT&PF's planned activities are localized and of relatively short duration. The entire project area is limited to the Sand Point dock area and its immediate surroundings. Specifically, the use of impact driving will be limited to approximately 22 hours over the course of up to 40 days of construction. Total vibratory pile driving time is estimated at approximately 85 hours over the same period. While impact driving does have the potential to cause injury to marine mammals, mitigation in the form of a 100 m shutdown zone should limit exposure to potentially injurious sound.
The project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on marine mammal habitat. No important marine mammal reproductive areas, such as rookeries, are known to exist within the ensonified areas. The project is located within the aquatic zones (
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of serious injury or mortality to authorized species may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the likelihood that PTS could occur in a limited number of animals is low, but acknowledged; (3) the anticipated incidences of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior or potential temporary threshold shift (TTS); (4) the limited temporal and spatial impacts on marine mammals or their habitat; (5) the absence of any major haul outs or rookeries near the project area; and (6) the presumed efficacy of the planned mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of effecting the least practicable impact upon the affected species. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
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 planned monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from ADOT&PF's Sand Point City Dock Replacement Project 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, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most
Table 11 presents the number of animals that could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level A and Level B harassment for the planned work at the Sand Point Dock Replacement Project. Our analysis shows that between <0.01 percent and 2.89 percent of the populations of affected stocks could be taken by harassment. Therefore, the numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual—an extremely unlikely scenario. For pinnipeds, especially Steller sea lions, occurring in the vicinity of the project site, there will almost certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day, and these takes are likely to occur only within some small portion of the overall regional stock. Table 11. Summary of the estimated numbers of marine mammals potentially exposed to Level A and Level B harassment noise levels.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity (including mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. The planned project is not known to occur in a subsistence hunting area. It is a developed area with regular marine vessel traffic. Additionally, ADOT&PF has spoken with local officials about concerns regarding impacts to subsistence uses and none were expressed. 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.
Issuance of an MMPA authorization requires compliance with the ESA. There are four DPSs of three marine mammal species that are listed under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the study area: The WNP DPS and Mexico DPS of humpback whale; the western DPS of Steller sea lion; and fin whale. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office (AKR) Protected Resources Division issued a Biological Opinion in September 2017 under section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to ADOT&PF under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS Permits and Conservation Division. The biological opinion concluded that while the issuance of the authorization may adversely affect members of these listed species it is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed marine mammal species or destroy or modify any critical habitat.
NMFS has issued an IHA to ADOT&PF for the potential harassment of small numbers of nine marine mammal species incidental to the Sand Point City Dock Replacement Project in Sand Point, Alaska, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting.
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Committee 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 Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Harborside, 250 Market Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801; phone: (603) 431-2300.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Groundfish Committee plans to discuss Framework Adjustment 57/Specifications and Management Measures and will receive a report from the Groundfish Plan Development Team on: (1) The draft alternatives under consideration (2) the specifications sub-component analysis (3) a review of the Georges Bank haddock sub-ACL in the directed mid-water trawl Atlantic herring fishery (4) several options for Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder sub-ACLs for the scallop fishery (5) adjusting the accountability measure policy for groundfish sub-ACLs for the scallop fishery to trigger only when the scallop sub-ACL and total ACL is exceeded. They also plan to discuss draft alternatives and make recommendations to the Council. Other business will 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 these meetings. 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. This meeting will be recorded. 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, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC's) Demersal Committee will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 8, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and on Thursday, November 9, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Royal Sonesta Harbor Court Baltimore, 550 Light St., Baltimore, MD 21202; telephone: (410) 234-0550.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Demersal Committee will meet to further refine management options for the commercial summer flounder fishery under the Comprehensive Summer Flounder Amendment. The focus of the meeting will be on reviewing and refining draft commercial allocation alternatives. The agenda may also include discussions of federal commercial permit requalification options, draft revised Fishery Management Plan (FMP) goals and objectives for summer flounder, and options for FMP framework provisions that could be used to address landings flexibility policies in future actions. Meeting materials will be posted to
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) will hold a webinar that is open to the public.
The GMT webinar will be held Tuesday, November 7, 2017, from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. The webinar end time is an estimate, the meeting will adjourn when business for the day is completed.
To attend the webinar (1) join the meeting by visiting this link
Ms. Kelly Ames, Pacific Council, (503) 820-2426.
The primary purpose of the GMT webinar is to prepare for the November 2017 Pacific Council meeting. A detailed agenda for the webinar will be available on the Pacific Council's Web site prior to the meeting. The GMT may also address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT. The GMT's task will be to develop recommendations for consideration by the Pacific Council at its November 2017 meeting.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. 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.
The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (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 of SEDAR 56 Assessment Scoping Webinar II.
The SEDAR 56 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of black seabass will consist of a series webinars. See
The SEDAR 56 Assessment Scoping Webinar II will be held on Wednesday, November 15, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m.
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (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. The product of the SEDAR webinar series will be a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species 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 non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the SEDAR 56 Assessment Scoping Webinar II are as follows:
Participants will review data and continue discussions on data issues, as necessary, and initial model issues.
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.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; solicitation of nominations.
NMFS solicits nominations for the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Advisory Panel (AP). NMFS consults with and considers the comments and views of the HMS AP when preparing and implementing Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) or FMP amendments for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish. Nominations are being sought to fill approximately one-third (11) of the seats on the HMS AP for a 3-year appointment. Individuals with definable interests in the recreational and commercial fishing and related industries, environmental community, academia, and non-governmental organizations are considered for membership on the HMS AP.
Nominations must be received on or before November 22, 2017.
You may submit nominations and requests for the Advisory Panel Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures by any of the following methods:
•
•
Peter Cooper at (301) 427-8503.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
Nomination packages should include:
1. The name of the nominee and a description of his/her interest in HMS or HMS fisheries, or in particular species of sharks, swordfish, tunas, or billfish;
2. Contact information, including mailing address, phone, and email of the nominee;
3. A statement of background and/or qualifications;
4. A written commitment that the nominee shall actively participate in good faith, and consistent with ethics obligations, in the meetings and tasks of the HMS AP; and
5. A list of outreach resources that the nominee has at his/her disposal to communicate Qualifications for HMS AP Membership
Qualification for membership includes one or more of the following: (1) Experience in HMS recreational fisheries; (2) experience in HMS commercial fisheries; (3) experience in fishery-related industries (
Member tenure will be for 3 years (36 months), with approximately one-third of the members' terms expiring on December 31 of each year. Nominations are sought for terms beginning January 2018 and expiring December 2020.
Nominations for the HMS AP will be accepted to allow representation from commercial and recreational fishing interests, academic/scientific interests, and the environmental/non-governmental organization community, who are knowledgeable about Atlantic HMS and/or Atlantic HMS fisheries. Current representation on the HMS AP, as shown in Table 1, consists of 12 members representing commercial interests, 12 members representing recreational interests, 4 members representing environmental interests, 4 academic representatives, and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Advisory Committee Chairperson. Each HMS AP member serves a 3-year term with approximately one-third of the total number of seats (33) expiring on December 31 of each year. NMFS seeks to fill 6 commercial, 3 recreational, 1 academic and 1 environmental organization vacancies by December 31, 2017. NMFS will seek to fill vacancies based primarily on maintaining the current representation from each of the sectors. NMFS also considers species expertise and representation from the fishing regions (Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean) to ensure the diversity and balance of the AP. Table 1 includes the current representation on the HMS AP by sector, region, and species with terms that are expiring identified in bold. It is not meant to indicate that NMFS will only consider persons who have expertise in the species or fishing regions that are listed. Rather, NMFS will aim toward having as diverse and balanced an AP as possible.
The intent is to have a group that, as a whole, reflects an appropriate and equitable balance and mix of interests given the responsibilities of the HMS AP.
Five additional members on the HMS AP include one member representing each of the following Councils: New England Fishery Management Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. The HMS AP also includes 22 ex-officio participants: 20 representatives of the coastal states and two representatives of the interstate commissions (the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission).
NMFS will provide the necessary administrative support, including technical assistance, for the HMS AP. However, NMFS will not compensate participants with monetary support of any kind. Depending on availability of funds, members may be reimbursed for travel costs related to the HMS AP meetings.
Meetings of the HMS AP will be held as frequently as necessary but are routinely held twice each year—once in the spring, and once in the fall. The meetings may be held in conjunction with public hearings.
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management (Habitat) Advisory Panel (AP) in St. Petersburg, FL. The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, November 15, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., and Thursday, November 16, 2017, from 9 a.m.to 12 noon.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
Items to be addressed or sessions to be conducted during this meeting include: Draft Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) II Implementation Plan; FEP II Dashboard links and tools; the SAFMC Ecospecies Species Information System; the Council's Habitat and Ecosystem Atlas/
Members of the AP will discuss items and provide recommendations as appropriate.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
Air Force Materiel Command, Department of the Air Force.
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive patent license agreement to The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, a public university duly organized, validly existing, and in good standing in the State of North Carolina, having a place of business at 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223, for any right, title and interest the Air Force has in: U.S. Patent Application No. 62/518,896, filed on June 13, 2017, entitled “Photodetector Focal Plane Array Systems and Methods Based on Microcomponents with Arbitrary Shapes,” by Vasily N. Astratov et al.
Written objections must be filed no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of publication of this Notice.
Submit written objections to the Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Room 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; or Email:
Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; Email:
35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte is a joint owner of this invention and the Air Force intends to license its rights to enable consolidation of such rights for future license agreements. The Department of the Air Force intends to grant the exclusive patent license agreement for the invention described in:
U.S. Patent Application No. 62/518,896, filed on June 13, 2017, entitled “Photodetector Focal Plane Array Systems and Methods Based on Microcomponents with Arbitrary Shapes.”
The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed license.
U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors, Department of the Air Force.
Meeting notice.
The U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) Board of Visitors (BoV) will hold a meeting at the Capitol Building, Room 212 in Washington, DC on Wednesday, 15 November 2017. The purpose of this meeting is to review morale and discipline, social climate, strategic communications, diversity, and other matters relating to the Academy. Specific topics for this meeting include a Superintendent's Update; Commandant's Update; Dean's Update; IT Modernization; Attrition and Diversity; Performance Measures for USAFA.
The meeting will be held from 1010 to 1430 on Wednesday, November 15 2017.
Capitol Building, Room 212, Washington, DC.
Captain Natalie Campos, Officer of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, SAF/MRM, Executive Officer and Force Management Action Officer, 1660 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330, (703) 697-7058,
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. Section 9355, the U.S. Air Force Academy BoV will hold a meeting at the Capitol Building, Room 212, in Washington, DC. The purpose of this meeting is to review morale and discipline, social climate, strategic communications, diversity, and other matters relating to the Academy. Specific topics for this meeting include a Superintendent's Update; Commandant's Update; Dean's Update; IT Modernization; Attrition and Diversity; Performance Measures for USAFA.
A period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described in this paragraph, will be allotted no more than five (5) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO. For the benefit of the public, rosters that list the names of BoV members and any releasable materials presented during the open portions of this BoV meeting shall be made available upon request.
Air Force Materiel Command, Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive patent license agreement to Ohio State Innovation Foundation, a non-profit, duly organized, validly existing, and in good standing in the State of Ohio, having a place of business at 1524 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43201, in any right, title and interest the Air Force has in: Air Force Disclosure Docket No. AFD 1677, entitled “Unmanned Aerial System Stinger-Suspended Crop Health Sensing,” by Shearer et al., and Air Force Disclosure Docket No. AFD 1679, entitled “Remote Sensing Image Processing Algorithm for Assessing Plant Population at Emergence,” by Wolters, et al.
Written objections must be filed no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of publication of this Notice.
Submit written objections to the Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Room 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; or Email:
Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; Email:
35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.
The Department of the Air Force intends to grant the [exclusive] [partially exclusive] patent license agreement for the invention described in:
The Ohio State University is a joint owner of the aforementioned inventions and the Air Force intends to license its rights to enable consolidation of such rights for future license agreements.
The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed license.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-46 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Twenty-six (26) AIM-120 C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)
One (1) AMRAAM Spare Guidance Section
Twenty (20) AMRAAM Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM), missile containers, control section spares, weapon systems support, test equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training, training equipment, U.S. Government
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the Netherlands has requested a possible sale of twenty-six (26) AIM-120 C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), one (1) AMRAAM Guidance Section Spare (MDE items), twenty (20) AMRAAM Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM), missile containers, control section spares, weapon systems support, test equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training, training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, logistics, technical support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total case value is $53 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO Ally which continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve the Netherland's capabilities for mutual defense, regional security, force modernization, and U.S. and NATO interoperability. This sale will enhance the Royal Netherlands Air Force's ability to defend the Netherlands against future threats and contribute to current and future NATO operations. The Netherlands maintains the AIM-120B in its inventory and will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government personnel or contractor representatives to the Netherlands.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. AIM-120C Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is a radar-guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. AMRAAM capabilities include look-down/shoot-down, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic counter measures, and interception of high flying, low flying, and maneuvering targets. The AMRAAM is classified CONFIDENTIAL, major components and subsystems range from UNCLASSIFIED to CONFIDENTIAL, and technology data and other documentation are classified up to SECRET.
2. If a technologically advanced adversary obtains knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
3. A determination has been made that the Government of the Netherlands can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary to the furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the policy justification.
4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of the Netherlands.
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:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding DV Trading, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 6, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that on October 17, 2017, pursuant to section 292.402 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules and Regulations,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
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
On July 5, 2017, Paiute Pipeline Company (Paiute) filed an application in Docket No. CP17-471-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Sections 7(b) and (c) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon and construct certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the 2018 Expansion Project (Project), and would provide 4,604 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of new transportation capacity, and shift an additional 1,031 Dth/d of current transportation capacity to a delivery point further downstream.
On July 19, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
The Project would involve construction and replacement of approximately 8.46 miles of pipeline to upsize or loop four segments of Paiute's Carson and South Tahoe Laterals in Douglas and Lyon Counties and Carson City, Nevada. For the two segments where pipeline would be replaced, portions of the existing pipeline would be abandoned in-place and by removal.
On January 26, 2017, the Commission issued a
The Bureau of Land Management and the Consolidated Municipality of Carson City, Nevada are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
On May 17, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) received a variance request from Rover Pipeline LLC (Rover) under Docket No. CP15-93-000 requesting to increase the approved delivery capacity at Rover's Majorsville Compressor Station by 100 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d). The request requires the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and was processed as an amended application rather than a variance.
On June 16, 2017, the Commission issued its Notice of Application for the Majorsville Compressor Station Amendment, now being considered in Docket No. CP17-464-000. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the project's progress.
Rover proposes to install a third 3,550 horsepower natural gas compressor unit at the Majorsville Compressor Station
On August 4, 2017, the Commission issued a
The EPA is currently participating as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the planned Buckeye Xpress Project (Buckeye Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) in Vinton, Jackson, Gallia, and Lawrence Counties, Ohio. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the Project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before November 16, 2017.
If you sent comments on this Project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on August 1, 2017, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF17-6-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding. This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know? is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (PF17-6-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426; or
(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend one of the public scoping sessions its staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows:
The primary goal of these scoping sessions is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the EA to be prepared for this project. Individual verbal comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of verbal comments, in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.
Each scoping session is scheduled from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Eastern time. You may arrive at any time after 4:30 p.m. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. Comments will be taken until 6:30 p.m. However, if no additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may conclude the session at 7:00 p.m. Please see appendix 1 for additional information on the session format and conduct.
Your scoping comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor.
It is important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight as written or electronically submitted comments. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the comment session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from Columbia will also be present to answer project-specific questions.
Columbia plans to replace Columbia's aging system with newer and more reliable pipeline facilities in Vinton, Jackson, Gallia, and Lawrence Counties, Ohio. The Project would provide about 275,000 dekatherms per day of additional firm natural gas transportation capacity. According to Columbia, its project would ensure reliability and flexibility for its firm storage and storage transportation services on a system-wide basis.
The Buckeye Project would consist of the following facilities:
• Install 65.7 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline and various associated facilities including two tie-ins, four new MLVs, suction and discharge lines to the Oak Hill Compressor Station, and installation of over-pressure protection at five locations (planned R-801 system);
• abandon 58.8 miles of existing 20-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline and associated facilities (R-501 system); and
• abandon 2.0 miles of existing 20-inch-diameter and 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline and associated facilities (R-500 system).
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 2.
Construction of the planned R-801 facilities would disturb about 1,220 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Abandonment of the existing R-500 and R-501 systems would affect about 979 acres. Following construction, Columbia would maintain about 402 acres for permanent operation of the project's new R-801 facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About 80 percent of the planned pipeline route would parallel existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Columbia. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis and includes:
• Agriculture and prime farmland;
• water resources;
• crossing of the Wayne National Forest;
• endangered species; and
• steep terrain.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 3).
Once Columbia files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for new license for the Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project, located on the South Fork of the Rogue River in Jackson County, Oregon, and has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the project. The project currently occupies 32.4 acres of federal land managed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
The DEA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of continued operation and maintenance of the project and concludes that relicensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the DEA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, contact Dianne Rodman at (202) 502-6077.
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:
The environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has scheduled a teleconference with representatives of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde to discuss the proposed Jordan Cove Energy and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Projects. This meeting will be held on October 24, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. (EDT).
Members of the public and intervenors in the referenced proceedings may attend the meeting; however, participation will be limited to tribal representatives and Commission staff. A summary of the meeting will be prepared and filed in the Commission's administrative record. If tribal representatives choose to disclose information about a specific location which could create a risk or harm to an archeological site or Native American cultural resource, the public will be excused for the portion of the meeting when such information is disclosed.
If you would like to attend the meeting, please contact Mr. John Peconom, Environmental Project Manager, for the call-in information. Mr. Peconom can be reached by telephone at (202) 502-6352 or by email at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the
Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document, must be received on or before November 22, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0408, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the actions addressed in this document.
1.
2.
This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from August 1, 2017 to August 31, 2017, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.
Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601
Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more
Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the
As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.
For the 42 PMNs received by EPA during this period, Table 1 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; The date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer/importer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.
For the 13 NOCs received by EPA during this period, Table 2 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the NOC; the date the NOC was received by EPA; the projected date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC; and the chemical identity.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Annual adjustment factors for excess emissions penalty.
The Acid Rain Program under title IV of the Clean Air Act provides for automatic excess emissions penalties in dollars per ton of excess emissions for sources that do not meet their annual Acid Rain emissions limitations. This document states the dollars per ton excess emissions penalty amounts, which must be adjusted for each compliance year commensurate with changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), for compliance years 2017 and 2018.
Robert L. Miller, Clean Air Markets Division (6204M), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, at (202) 343-9077 or
The Acid Rain Program under title IV of the Clean Air Act limits annual sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions of fossil fuel-fired utility units. Under the Acid Rain Program, affected sources must hold enough allowances to cover their sulfur dioxide emissions, and certain coal-fired sources must meet an emission limit for nitrogen oxides. Under 40 CFR 77.6, sources that do not meet these requirements must pay a penalty without demand to the Administrator based on the number of excess tons emitted times $2,000 as adjusted by an annual adjustment factor, which must be published in the
The annual adjustment factor for adjusting the penalty for excess emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides under 40 CFR part 77.6(b) for compliance year 2017 is 1.9330. This value is derived using the CPI for 1990 and 2016 (defined respectively at 40 CFR 72.2 as the CPI for August of the year before the specified year for all urban consumers) and results in an automatic penalty of $3,866 per excess ton of sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides emitted for 2017.
The annual adjustment factor for adjusting the penalty for such excess emissions under 40 CFR 77.6(b) for compliance year 2018 is 1.9705. This value is derived using the CPI for 1990 and 2017 and results in an automatic penalty of $3,941 per excess ton of sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides emitted for 2018.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before November 22, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
a. Amend 180.659 (a) General. (5) by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide pyroxasulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, determined by measuring only the sum of pyroxasulfone, (3-[(5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)pyrazol-4-ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-1,2-oxazole), and its metabolites, M-1 (5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl) methanesulfonic acid), M-3 (5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid), M-25 (5-difluoromethoxy-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)methanesulfonic acid) and M-28 (3-[1-carboxy-2-(5,5-dimethyl-4,5-dihydroisoxazol-3-ylthio)ethylamino]-3-oxopropanoic acid) calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyroxasulfone, in or on the commodities: Peppermint, oil at 0.48 ppm; peppermint, tops at 0.15 ppm; spearmint, oil at 0.48 ppm; spearmint, tops at 0.15 ppm and soybean, vegetable, succulent at 0.2 ppm.
b. Amend 180.659 (c) Tolerances with regional registrations, by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide pyroxasulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, determined by measuring only the sum of pyroxasulfone, (3-[(5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)pyrazol-4-ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-1,2-oxazole), and its
Analytical enforcement methodology including LC/MS/MS is available to enforce the tolerance expression for pyroxasulfone.
10.
a. Amend 40 CFR 180.503 (a) General, by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide cymoxanil, 2-cyano-N-[(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino) acetamide, in or on the following food commodities: Carrot, roots at 0.03 ppm; ginseng at 0.02 ppm; mango at 0.02 ppm; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 15.0 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A at 19.0 ppm; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 6.0 ppm; vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.05 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.2 ppm; arugula at 19.0 ppm; upland cress at 19.0 ppm; garden cress at 19.0 ppm; celtuce at 6.0 ppm; and Florence, fennel at 6.0 ppm.
b. Amend 40 CFR 180.503 (c) Tolerances with regional registrations by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide cymoxanil, 2-cyano -
An analytical enforcement method is available for determining cymoxanil residues in plants,
11.
a. Amend 40 CFR 180.587 (a) General, by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide famoxadone (3-anilino-5-methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)-1,3-oxazolidine-2,4-dione), in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Carrot, roots at 0.6 ppm; ginseng at 0.3 ppm; mango at 0.9 ppm; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 40.0 ppm; vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.02 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10, except tomato at 4.0 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except spinach at 25.0 ppm; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 25.0 ppm; arugula at 25.0 ppm; upland cress at 25.0 ppm; garden cress at 25.0 ppm; celtuce at 25.0 ppm; and Florence, fennel at 25.0 ppm.
b. Amend 40 CFR 180.587 (c) Tolerances with regional registrations, by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide famoxadone (3-anilino-5-methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)-1,3-oxazolidine-2,4-dione), in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Bean, succulent at 0.15 ppm.
An analytical enforcement method is available for determining famoxadone plant residues in or on a variety of food crops using GC with NPD. The LOQ is 0.02 ppm for leafy vegetables and green onion and 0.05 ppm for dry bulb onion. The analytical enforcement method for use on tomato processed fractions and also the RAC, tomato, utilizes column switching liquid chromatography with UV detection. The LOQ is 0.02 ppm which allows monitoring of crops with famoxadone residues at or above the levels of proposed tolerances.
12.
13.
14.
15.
a. Amend 180.659 (a) General. (1), by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide pyroxasulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, determined by measuring only the sum of pyroxasulfone, 3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1
b. Amend 180.659 (a) General. (5), by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide pyroxasulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, determined by measuring only the sum of pyroxasulfone, (3-[(5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)pyrazol-4-ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-1,2-oxazole), and its metabolites, M-1 (5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-
Analytical enforcement methodology including LC/MS/MS is available to enforce the tolerance expression for pyroxasulfone.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Pursuant to the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), facilitates the finance of the export of U.S. goods and services by providing insurance or guarantees to U.S. exporters or lenders financing U.S. exports. By neutralizing the effect of export credit insurance or guarantees offered by foreign governments and by absorbing credit risks that the private sector will not accept, EXIM enables U.S. exporters to compete fairly in foreign markets on the basis of price and product. In the event that a borrower defaults on a transaction insured or guaranteed by EXIM, the insured or guaranteed exporter or lender may seek payment from EXIM by the submission of a claim.
Comments must be received on or before December 22, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 635 (a)(1), to determine if such claim complies with the terms and conditions of the relevant guarantee. The Notice of Claim and Proof of Loss, Medium Term Guarantee is used to determine compliance with the terms of the guarantee and the appropriateness of paying a claim. EXIM customers are able to submit this form on paper or electronically.
Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor)
This meeting will be open to the public.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of new members to the General Services Administration Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board. The Performance Review Board assures consistency, stability, and objectivity in the performance appraisal process.
Ms. Shonna James, Director, Executive Resources Division, Office of Human Resources Management, General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, 202-230-7005.
Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5 U.S.C requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulation prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review board(s).
The board is responsible for making recommendations to the appointing and
The following have been designated as members of the Performance Review Board of GSA:
• Anthony Costa, Acting Deputy Administrator, Office of the Administrator—Chair.
• Antonia Harris, Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of Human Resources Management.
• Allison Brigati, Associate Administrator for Government-wide Policy, Office of Government-Wide Policy.
• Alan Thomas Jr., Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service.
• Mary Davie, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service.
• Daniel Mathews, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.
• Michael Gelber, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.
• Giancarlo Brizzi, Principal Deputy Associate Administrator for Government-wide Policy, Office of Government-Wide Policy.
• Joanna Rosato, Regional Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, Mid-Atlantic Region.
• Kim Brown, Regional Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service, Great Lakes Region.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice; correction.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a document in the
Leroy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS D-74, Atlanta, GA 30333; telephone (404) 639-4965; email:
In the
Progress Report for Injury Control Research Centers (ICRC)—New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC also requests the correction of the following: On page 47746, in the third column (second paragraph), correct the second sentence as follows: ICRC awardees will report activity information to CDC twice per year using three fillable electronic templates.
Also on page 47746 (third column and last paragraph), correct the paragraph to read as follows: Submission of the Annual Progress Report information is required for cooperative agreement grantees. The
Finally, on page 47747, correct the table for the Estimated Annualized Burden Hours as follows:
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed above has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance as required under section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA). This 30-Day notice requests comments on the information collection requirements related to the proposed revision of an existing data collection regarding the information collection requirements in the Maintenance of Effort collection form for all ACL/AoA Title III Grantees.
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by November 22, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information: By fax at 202.395.5806 or by email to
Jesse Moore at (202) 795-7578 or
In compliance with Section 44 U.S.C. 3507, ACL has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. ACL is requesting approval for three years of an extension of the currently approved data collection with modifications.
The Certification of Maintenance of Effort under Tittle III and Certification of Long-Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO) Program Expenditures provide statutorily required information regarding each state's contribution to programs funded under the Older Americans Act and compliance with legislative requirements, pertinent Federal regulations, and other applicable instructions and guidelines issued by ACL.
In addition to renewing OMB approval of these data collection instruments, minor changes are being proposed to the LTCO Expenditures Certification and an accompanying document which provides specific statutory references related to Ombudsman program minimum funding, non-supplanting requirements, and state authorization to expend Title III-B funds on Ombudsman activities. Specifically, changes include making the reference to the Fiscal Year at the bottom of the form a fillable field to allow the date to be changed annually; listing the “Administration for Community Living (ACL)” as the intended recipient of the completed form; and updating statutory language references,
A 60-Day notice was published in the
ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: 56 State Agencies on Aging respond annually, and it takes each agency an average of one half (
The proposed data collection tool may be found on the ACL Web site for review at:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for MITRACLIP CDS and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before December 22, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the medical device MITRACLIP CDS. MITRACLIP CDS is indicated for the percutaneous reduction of significant symptomatic mitral regurgitation (MR ≥ 3+) due to primary abnormality of the mitral apparatus (degenerative MR) in patients who have been determined to be at prohibitive risk for mitral valve surgery by a heart team, which includes a cardiac surgeon experienced in mitral valve surgery and a cardiologist experienced in mitral valve disease, and in whom existing comorbidities would not preclude the expected benefit from reduction of the mitral regurgitation. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for MITRACLIP CDS (U.S.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for MITRACLIP CDS is 3,846 days. Of this time, 2,515 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,331 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In the applications for patent extension, the applicants seek 1,827 days or 1,721 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for Inspire Upper Airway Stimulation System (Inspire UAS System) and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before December 22, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the medical device INSPIRE UAS SYSTEM. INSPIRE UAS SYSTEM is indicated for treatment of a subset of patients with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (apnea-hypopnea index of greater than or equal to 20 and less than or equal to 65). Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for INSPIRE UAS SYSTEM (U.S. Patent No. 6,021,352) from Inspire Medical Systems, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 30, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of INSPIRE UAS SYSTEM represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for INSPIRE UAS SYSTEM is 2,002 days. Of this time, 1,653 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 349 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,184 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for OBIZUR and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human biological product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before December 22, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51,
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human biological products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the biological product becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human biological product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the biological product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human biological product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human biologic product OBIZUR (rpFVIII). OBIZUR is indicated for the treatment of bleeding episodes in adults with acquired hemophilia A. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for OBIZUR (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,180,371; 6,458,563; and 7,560,107) from Emory University and (U.S. Patent No. 7,576,181) from Emory University, Baxter International, Inc., and Baxter Healthcare SA; and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In letters dated October 19, 2015, and January 11, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human biological product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of OBIZUR represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for OBIZUR is 4,216 days. Of this time, 3,883 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 333 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 5 years of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that ELAVIL (amitriptyline hydrochloride) oral tablets, 10 milligrams (mg), 25 mg, 50 mg, 75 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for amitriptyline hydrochloride oral tablets, 10 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, 75 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
Stacy Kane, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8363,
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
ELAVIL (amitriptyline hydrochloride) oral tablets, 10 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, 75 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg, are the subject of NDA 012703, held by AstraZeneca, and initially approved on April 7, 1961. ELAVIL is indicated for the relief of symptoms of depression. ELAVIL (amitriptyline hydrochloride) oral tablets, 10 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, 75 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg, are currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. In the
Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited submitted a citizen petition dated June 5, 2017 (Docket No. FDA-2017-P-3581), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether ELAVIL (amitriptyline hydrochloride) oral tablets, 10 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, 75 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that ELAVIL (amitriptyline hydrochloride) oral tablets, 10 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, 75 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that these products were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of ELAVIL (amitriptyline hydrochloride) oral tablets, 10 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, 75 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that this drug product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list ELAVIL (amitriptyline hydrochloride) oral tablets, 10 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, 75 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to ELAVIL (amitriptyline hydrochloride) oral tablets, 10 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, 75 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a new draft guidance for industry on generic methylphenidate hydrochloride oral extended-release tablets entitled “Draft Guidance on Methylphenidate Hydrochloride.” The new draft guidance, when finalized, will provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for methylphenidate hydrochloride oral extended-release tablets.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by December 22, 2017 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and
•
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Xiaoqiu Tang, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-600), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4730, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5850.
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and to provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on the guidances. This notice announces the availability of a new draft guidance for generic methylphenidate hydrochloride oral extended-release tablets.
FDA initially approved new drug application 018029 for RITALIN-SR (methylphenidate hydrochloride oral extended-release tablets) in March 1982. We are now issuing a new draft guidance for industry on methylphenidate hydrochloride oral extended-release tablets (“Draft Guidance on Methylphenidate Hydrochloride”).
In May 2016, KVK-Tech, Inc. (KVK-Tech) submitted a citizen petition requesting, among other things, that FDA not accept for filing any new ANDAs or approve any already received ANDAs for methylphenidate hydrochloride oral extended-release tablets unless certain BE criteria are met. FDA will consider any comments on the draft guidance on BE recommendations for generic methylphenidate hydrochloride oral extended-release tablets before responding to KVK-Tech's citizen petition. (Docket No. FDA-2016-P-1247, available at
The new draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The new draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the design of BE studies to support ANDAs for methylphenidate hydrochloride oral extended-release tablets. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Title 5, U.S.C. Section 4314(c)(4) of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454, requires that the appointment of Performance Review Board Members be published in the
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice; correction 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 October 11, 2017 (FR 2017-21786), the corrections are:
Under the heading
•
•
•
The
Under Project Period, the sentence corrections reflects a start date of December 1, 2017:
• “The project period is for three years and will run consecutively from December 1, 2017 to October 31, 2020.”
Under Submission Dates and time: “Eastern Daylight Time (EDT)” should be used instead of “Eastern Savings Time (EST).”
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NHLBI Special Emphasis Panel.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, November 13, 2017, 01:00 p.m. to November 13, 2017, 04:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6710 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting date has changed from November 13, 2017, 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to November 27, 2017, 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0019, Alternative Compliance for International and Inland Navigation Rules. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before November 22, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0104] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0104], and must be received by November 22, 2017
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
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 37463, August 10, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0092, Sewage and Graywater Discharge Records for Certain Cruise Vessels Operating on Alaskan Waters. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 22, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0898] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0898], and must be received by December 22, 2017.
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 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0024, Safety Approval of Cargo Containers; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 22, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0950] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0950], and must be received by December 22, 2017.
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 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for the following collection of information: 1625—New, GOCOASTGUARD.COM Prospect Questionnaire, Chat Now Questionnaire, and The Officer Program Application. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before November 22, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0129] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0129], and must be received by November 22, 2017.
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
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 33140, July 19, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
This notice allows Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) that are in Presidentially declared disaster areas and that either (a) have submitted Letters of Interest (LOI) to reserve their position on the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) waiting list and that have subsequently been notified that they are eligible for award if they submit a complete RAD Application, Portfolio Award proposal, or Multi-phase Award Application within 60 days of notification or (b) have received a Portfolio Award and have been provided 365 days from issuance of the Portfolio Award to submit acceptable RAD Applications for the remaining projects included in the Portfolio Award, to request an extension to the due date for making submissions.
This notice is effective on October 23, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit questions or comments electronically to
To assure a timely response, please direct requests for further information electronically to the email address
The RAD program notice, Rental Assistance Demonstration—Final Implementation, Revision 3 (H-2017-03, REV-3, PIH-2012-32 (HA) January 12, 2017) (Program Notice) permits a PHA to submit a letter of interest (LOI) in lieu of a RAD Application in order to reserve the PHA's spot on the RAD waiting list. It further states that in anticipation of HUD's ability to make additional awards, HUD will notify the PHA that it must submit a complete RAD Application, Portfolio Award, or Multi-phase Award and comply with all the application provisions of the Program Notice within 60 days of such notification or forfeit its position on the waiting list. In a
The Program Notice also permits a PHA to apply for a Portfolio Award, which allows a PHA to reserve RAD conversion authority for a set of projects, as long as the PHA submits a RAD Application for at least 50 percent of the projects identified in the portfolio. HUD issues a Portfolio Award Letter, which provides the PHA 365 days from issuance of the letter to submit acceptable RAD Applications for the remaining projects included in the Portfolio Award.
Due to the difficulties PHAs may face in meeting the deadline for submitting application materials, HUD may approve extensions on a case-by-case basis to PHAs that are located in Presidentially declared disaster areas in accordance with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act at 42 U.S.C. 5170 and that either (a) had submitted LOIs, and that have subsequently been notified that they are eligible for award if they submit a complete RAD Application, Portfolio Award proposal, or Multi-phase Application within 60 days of notification or (b) have received a Portfolio Award and have been provided 365 days from issuance of the Portfolio Award to submit acceptable RAD Applications for the remaining projects included in the Portfolio Award.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50, which implemented section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development; 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276; Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the FONSI by calling the Regulations Division at (202) 708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before November 22, 2017.
•
•
When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on
Joyce Russell, Government Information Specialist, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: IA; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2023; facsimile 703-358-2280.
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
The applicant requests a permit to import two male captive-bred Asian elephants (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to enhance propagation or survival of the following species: African penguin (
The applicant requests renewal of a captive-bred wildlife registration under
The applicant requests renewal of their permit authorizing the culling of excess Barasingha (
The following applicants each request a permit to import a sport-hunted trophy of a male bontebok (
If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this notice by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
We will post all hardcopy comments on
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until December 22, 2017.
All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Mrs. Amy C. Blasher, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Information Services Division, Module E-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306; facsimile (304) 625-3566.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Refuse Piles and Impoundment Structures—Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before November 22, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Refuse Piles and Impoundment Structures—Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements information collection requirements codified in regulations 30 CFR 77.215 and 77.216. These regulations require a coal mine operator to submit an annual report and certification on refuse piles and impoundments to the MSHA and to develop and maintain a record of the results of each weekly examination and instrumentation monitoring. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 sections 101(a) and 103(h) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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;
• 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;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). Additionally, OSHA announces the voluntary removal of a
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on October 23, 2017.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA) as a NRTL. TUVRNA's expansion covers the addition of one test standard to its scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.
The Agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
TUVRNA submitted an application, dated September 30, 2015, (OSHA-2007-0042-0022) to expand its recognition to include one additional test standard. OSHA staff performed a comparability analysis and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVRNA's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to TUVRNA's application, go to
OSHA staff examined TUVRNA's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that TUVRNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant TUVRNA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of TUVRNA's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standard listed in Table 1 below.
Additionally, TUVRNA submitted a voluntary withdrawal letter on April 7, 2017, (OSHA-2007-0042-0025) to reduce its scope of recognition by one test standard. Table 2 below lists the recognized test standard that will be removed from TUVRNA's scope of recognition.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standard listed above in Table 1 as an American National Standard. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, TUVRNA must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. TUVRNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. TUVRNA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. TUVRNA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of TUVRNA, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above. Additionally, pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA further reduces the scope of recognition of TUVRNA per its request of voluntary withdrawal by removing the standard outlined in Table 2 above. TUVRNA has notified the NRTL clients for which TUVRNA certified products conforming to UL 913 of this reduction in NRTL scope.
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
The National Science Board's Committee on Honorary Awards, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
October 30, 2017 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314.
Closed.
(1) Subcommittee Chair's opening remarks; (2) Review and discuss candidates for the 2018 National Science Board Honorary Awards—the Vannevar Bush Award and the NSB Public Service Award; and subcommittee Chair's closing remarks.
Point of contact for this meeting is: Nadine Lymn, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314,
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541. This is the required notice.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8224; email:
On September 14, 2017, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit modification request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice of a requested permit modification.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by November 22, 2017. Permit applications may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address, 703-292-8030, or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
A recent modification to this permit, dated November 9, 2016, permitted the permit holder to continue permitted activities, including minimization, mitigation, and monitoring of waste, for the 2016-2017 Antarctic season. The Environmental Officer reviewed the modification request and determined that the amendment was not a material change to the permit, and it will have a less than a minor or transitory impact.
Now the permit holder proposes a modification to the permit to continue the permitted activities for the 2017-2018 Antarctic season and add coastal camping activities as well as resupply of fresh food as part of Quixote's new fly/
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, November 14, 2017.
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.
The one item is open to the public.
57150 Railroad Accident Report: Amtrak Train Collision with Maintenance-of-Way Equipment, Chester, Pennsylvania, April 3, 2016
Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314-6305 or by email at
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at
Terry Williams at (202) 314-6100 or by email at
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to reflect changes to certain representations made in the respective proposed rule changes previously filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 19b-4 relating to the PIMCO Active Bond Exchange-Traded Fund, PIMCO Enhanced Low Duration Active Exchange-Traded Fund, PIMCO Short Term Municipal Bond Active Exchange-Traded Fund, PIMCO Intermediate Municipal Bond Active Exchange-Traded Fund, and PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”). Shares of the Funds are currently listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Commission has approved the listing and trading on the Exchange of shares (“Shares”) of the Funds, under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E (formerly NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600), which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares.
In this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to reflect changes to certain representations made in the respective proposed rule changes previously filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) relating to the Funds, as described below.
The 2017 Bond Release stated that the Fund will primarily (under normal market circumstances, at least 65% of its total assets) invest in a diversified portfolio of Fixed Income Instruments of varying maturities, which may be represented by derivatives related to Fixed Income Instruments, but may invest up to 30% of its total assets in high yield Fixed Income Instruments (which may be represented by derivatives related to Fixed Income Instruments) rated B3 through Ba1 by Moody's, or equivalently rated by S&P or Fitch, or, if unrated, determined by PIMCO to be of comparable credit quality. The Adviser proposes to revise this representation to state that the Fund will primarily (under normal market circumstances, at least 65% of its total assets) invest in a diversified portfolio of Fixed Income Instruments of varying maturities, which may be represented by derivatives related to Fixed Income Instruments, and may invest in high yield Fixed Income Instruments (which may be represented by derivatives related to Fixed Income Instruments) of any credit quality.
The 2017 Bond Release stated that the average portfolio duration of PIMCO Active Bond Exchange-Traded Fund normally will vary from zero to eight years based on PIMCO's market forecasts. The Adviser proposes to revise this representation to state that the average portfolio duration of this Fund normally will vary from zero to nine years based on PIMCO's market forecasts.
The First Prior Bond Notice stated that the Fund may invest up to 15% of its total assets in securities and instruments that are economically tied to emerging market countries.
The Adviser represents that the proposed changes to the Fund's investments referenced above are consistent with the Fund's investment objective, and will further assist the Adviser to achieve such investment objective.
The Prior Low Duration Notice stated that the Fund will invest primarily in investment grade debt securities, but may invest up to 10% of its total assets in high yield debt securities rated B to Ba by Moody's, or equivalently rated by S&P or Fitch, or, if unrated, determined by PIMCO to be of comparable credit quality. The Adviser proposes to revise this representation to state that the Fund will invest primarily in investment grade debt securities, and may invest in
The Prior Low Duration Notice stated that the average portfolio duration of the Fund normally will vary from one to three years based on PIMCO's forecast for interest rates. The Adviser proposes to revise this representation to state that the average portfolio duration of the Fund normally will vary from zero to four years based on PIMCO's forecast for interest rates.
The Prior Low Duration Notice stated that the Fund may invest up to 10% of its total assets in securities and instruments that are economically tied to emerging market countries, subject to the Fund's investment limitations relating to particular asset classes.
The Adviser represents that the proposed changes to the Fund's investments referenced above are consistent with the Fund's investment objective, and will further assist the Adviser to achieve such investment objective.
The Prior Short Term Municipal Bond Notice [sic] stated that the Fund may only invest in U.S. dollar-denominated investment grade debt securities. The Adviser proposes to revise this representation to state that the Fund may only invest in U.S. dollar-denominated debt securities, which may be of any credit quality.
The Prior Short Term Municipal Bond Notice [sic] stated that the average portfolio duration of this Fund varies based on PIMCO's forecast for interest rates and under normal market conditions is not expected to exceed three years. The Adviser proposes to revise this representation to state that the average portfolio duration of this Fund varies based on PIMCO's forecast for interest rates and under normal market conditions is not expected to exceed four years.
The Prior Short Term Municipal Bond Notice [sic] stated that the dollar-weighted average portfolio maturity of the Fund is normally not expected to exceed three years. The Adviser proposes to revise this representation to state that the Fund will not have any portfolio maturity limitation and may invest its assets in instruments with short-term, medium-term, or long-term maturities.
The Adviser represents that the proposed changes to the Fund's investments referenced above are consistent with the Fund's investment objective, and will further assist the Adviser to achieve such investment objective.
The First Prior Intermediate Municipal Bond Notice stated that the Fund may only invest in U.S. dollar-denominated investment grade debt securities. The Adviser proposes to revise this representation to state the Fund may only invest in U.S. dollar-denominated debt securities, which may be of any credit quality.
The Second Prior Intermediate Municipal Bond Notice stated that the average portfolio duration of the Fund normally would vary within (negative) 2 years to positive 4 years of the portfolio duration of the securities comprising the Barclays 1-15 Year Municipal Bond Index, as calculated by PIMCO (the “Index”). The Adviser proposes to revise this representation to state the average portfolio duration of the Fund normally would vary within (negative) 3 years to positive 5 years of the portfolio duration of the securities comprising the Index.
The Adviser represents that the proposed changes to the Fund's investments referenced above are consistent with the Fund's investment objective, and will further assist the Adviser to achieve such investment objective.
The Prior Short Maturity Notice stated that the Fund primarily invests in U.S. dollar-denominated investment grade debt securities, rated Baa or higher by Moody's, or equivalently rated by S&P or Fitch, or, if unrated, determined by PIMCO to be of comparable credit quality. The Adviser proposes to revise this representation to state the Fund primarily will invest in U.S. dollar-
The Prior Short Maturity Notice stated that the average portfolio duration of this Fund will vary based on PIMCO's forecast for interest rates and will normally not exceed one year. The Adviser proposes to revise this representation to state the average portfolio duration of this Fund will vary based on PIMCO's forecast for interest rates and will normally not exceed one and one half years.
The Prior Short Maturity Notice stated that the dollar-weighted average portfolio maturity of the Fund is normally not expected to exceed three years. The Adviser proposes to revise this representation to state the Fund will not have any portfolio maturity limitation and may invest its assets in instruments with short-term, medium-term, or long-term maturities.
The Prior Short Maturity Notice stated that the Fund may invest up to 5% of its total assets in U.S. dollar-denominated fixed-income securities and instruments that are economically tied to emerging market countries. The Adviser proposes to revise this representation to state the Fund may invest up to 10% of its total assets in U.S. dollar-denominated fixed-income securities and instruments that are economically tied to emerging market countries.
The Adviser represents that the proposed changes to the Fund's investments referenced above are consistent with the Fund's investment objective, and will further assist the Adviser to achieve such investment objective.
Except for the changes noted above, all other representations made in the Prior Bond Releases, the Prior Bond Low Duration Releases, the Prior Short Term Releases, the Prior Intermediate Municipal Bond Releases, and the Prior Short Maturity Releases, respectively, remain unchanged.
All terms referenced but not defined herein are defined in the Prior Bond Releases, the Prior Low Duration Releases [sic], the Prior Short Term Releases, the Prior Intermediate Municipal Bond Releases, and the Prior Short Maturity Releases, respectively.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest.
With respect to changes in the representations regarding investments in investment grade and high yield debt securities for each of the Funds' portfolios, such changes will provide each Fund with additional flexibility in selecting fixed income securities investments in view of changing market conditions and consistent with a Fund's investment objectives. The Exchange believes that the changes to representations regarding investments in investment grade or high yield fixed income securities in the applicable Funds' portfolios are consistent with prior Commission approvals of proposed rule changes for other issues of Managed Fund Shares and will not adversely impact investors or Exchange trading.
With respect to the proposed changes to the representations regarding the average portfolio duration regarding the portfolios of each of the Funds, and the change to the representation regarding the dollar-weighted average portfolio maturity regarding the portfolio of the PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund and the PIMCO Short Term Municipal Bond Active Exchange-Traded Fund, the Exchange believes such changes will not adversely impact investors or Exchange trading and will provide such Funds with additional flexibility in managing the Funds' investments based on the Adviser's assessment of market conditions impacting the Funds' investments. Further, a more flexible bandwidth for the average portfolio duration and dollar-weighted average portfolio maturity will allow the Funds to respond more effectively to changing market conditions. The Exchange believes that the change to the average portfolio duration and dollar-weighted average portfolio maturity of the applicable Funds' portfolios are consistent with prior Commission approvals of proposed rule changes for other issues of Managed Fund Shares and will not adversely impact investors or Exchange trading.
With respect to proposed changes in the representations regarding investments in securities and instruments that are economically tied to emerging market countries for the PIMCO Active Bond Exchange-Traded Fund, PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund and PIMCO Enhanced Low Duration Active Exchange-Traded Fund, such changes will provide each Fund with additional flexibility in selecting fixed income securities investments of emerging market issuers, which may be appropriate in view of changing market conditions and consistent with a Fund's investment objectives. The Exchange believes that the changes to such representations are consistent with prior Commission approvals of proposed rule changes for other issues of Managed Fund Shares and will not adversely impact investors or Exchange trading.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition among issues of exchange-traded funds that invest in fixed income securities to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.76A-O (Order Execution—OX). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of the filing is to amend Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.76A-O (Order Execution—OX) regarding the Exchange's Self-Trade Prevention (“STP”) functionality.
The Exchange proposes to expand the self-trade functionality by adopting three STP modifiers. The proposed STP modifiers are designed to prevent incoming Market Maker order(s) or quote(s) designated with an STP
The Exchange believes the proposed functionality will allow OTP Holders to better manage order flow and prevent undesirable or unexpected executions with themselves. Given enhancements in technology in today's trading environment, OTP Holders often have multiple connections into the Exchange. Orders, for example, routed by the same OTP Holder via different connections may, in certain circumstances, trade against each other. The proposed STP modifiers would provide OTP Holders the opportunity to prevent these potentially undesirable interactions occurring under the same TPID on both the buy and sell side of an execution.
The three new STP modifiers are discussed more thoroughly below.
An incoming order or quote marked with the STPN modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier from the same TPID. The incoming order or quote marked with the STPN modifier will be cancelled back to the originating TPID. The resting order(s) or quote(s) will remain on the Consolidated Book.
An incoming order or quote marked with the STPO modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest market with any STP modifier from the same TPID. The resting order(s) or quote(s) marked with the STP modifier will be cancelled back to the originating TPID. The incoming order or quote marked with the STPO modifier will remain on the Consolidated Book.
An incoming order or quote marked with the STPC modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier from the same TPID. The entire size of both orders and/or quotes will be cancelled back to the originating TPID.
As with the current functionality, the enhanced STP functionality would be in effect throughout the trading day for all Market Makers on the Exchange,
As proposed, the enhanced STP functionality would not be applicable to Qualified Contingent Cross (“QCC”) Orders.
The enhanced STP functionality proposed herein is similar to functionality currently offered by the Bats Exchange, Inc. (“Bats”).
The NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”) currently offers functionality that applies to orders and quotes, but in a limited manner.
The Exchange also proposes at this time to make a procedural change for announcements regarding the STP functionality. Presently the Exchange issues Regulatory Information Bulletins when making announcements related to STP functionality. Going forward, the Exchange proposes to issue a Trader Update in lieu of a Regulatory Information Bulletin. Regulatory Information Bulletins generally contain information regarding legal and regulatory matters while a Trader Update deals with issues such as trading, systems changes and real-time market announcements. The Exchange believes that it is more appropriate to make announcements regarding the STP functionality via Trader Update. Trader Updates, like Regulatory Information Bulletins, are electronically distributed to OTP Holders and posted on the Exchange's Web site. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .01 to current Rule 6.76A-O by replacing reference to “Regulatory Information Bulletin” with “Trader Update.”
Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed rule change, the Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date of the proposed rule change, which will be no later than 60 days from the effective date of this rule filing.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade because it would provide Market Makers with a functionality that is similar to functionality currently available on other markets.
The Exchange notes that Market Makers have expressed an interest in the proposed functionality as it would prevent them from inadvertently trading with their own interest. In such a situation, OTP Holders currently ask the Exchange to nullify such inadvertent trades, which they are permitted to do under the Exchange's rules because the OTP Holder is on both sides of the trade.
Finally, the replacement of reference to Regulatory Information Bulletin with Trader Update, would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities as Trader Updates deal with issues such as trading, systems changes and real-time market announcements and are electronically distributed to OTP Holders and posted on the Exchange's Web site.
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 is designed to enhance STP functionality provided to Exchange Market Makers, and will benefit members that wish to protect their orders and quotes against trading with other orders and quotes that originate from the same TPID. The new functionality, which is similar to functionality currently offered on other markets, is also voluntary, and the Exchange therefore does not believe that providing an enhanced offering to prevent against self-trading will have any significant impact on competition. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is evidence of the competitive environment in the options industry where exchanges must continually improve their offerings to maintain competitive standing.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 2.220(a)(7) and 11.410(a) to reflect reflect [sic] the name change NYSE MKT to NYSE American
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
IEX 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 Exchange believes that the proposed correction does not impact competition in any respect since it is designed to simply update away market names.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to implement certain amendments to the ICC Clearing Rules (the “Rules”) relating to implementation of Venezuela sanctions.
In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of the proposed changes is to modify certain provisions of the Rules applicable to cleared CDS contracts (or components thereof) for which the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a reference entity, in light of the sanctions (the “Venezuela Sanctions”) imposed by Executive Order 13808 of August 24, 2017
The amendments will incorporate in the terms and conditions for such contracts the Additional Provisions for Certain Venezuelan Entities: Excluded Obligations and Excluded Deliverable Obligations published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) on September 19, 2017 (the “Venezuela Additional Provisions”). Consistent with the approach expected to be taken throughout the cleared and uncleared CDS market, ICE Clear Credit will make the Venezuela Additional Provisions applicable to relevant CDS contracts cleared by ICE Clear Credit beginning on the industry-wide implementation date (currently expected to be on or around October 20, 2017 (the “Additional Provisions Effective Date”)).
Among other provisions, the Executive Order prohibits transactions in or relating to certain bonds issued by the government of Venezuela, except to the extent permitted by a license issued by OFAC (“Restricted Debt”). The Venezuela Additional Provisions implement this prohibition by excluding Venezuela government bonds that are Restricted Debt from being “Obligations” or “Deliverable Obligations” under the terms of a CDS contract. As such, credit events with respect to such Restricted Debt could not be used to trigger credit protection under a CDS contract, and such Restricted Debt could not be used in settlement of a CDS contract. Pursuant to the terms of the Venezuela Additional Provisions, these limitations would cease to apply upon the lifting of sanctions under the Executive Order.
ICE Clear Credit understands, through discussions with market participants, that market participants generally are expected to adhere to a protocol implementing the Venezuela Additional Provisions for existing contracts in the uncleared CDS market, effective as of the Additional Provisions Effective Date. In an effort to maintain consistency across the CDS market, ICE Clear Credit plans to implement the amendments discussed herein as of the same time.
ICE Clear Credit is amending its Rules to incorporate the Venezuela Additional Provisions into existing Contracts. ICE Clear Credit is amending Rule 26C-316, which applies to CDX.EM Contracts, an index CDS contract for which Venezuela may be an index component. New subsection (e) provides that all open positions in CDX.EM Contracts that have a component transaction in which Venezuela is a reference entity will be amended, effective as of the Additional Provisions Effective Date, such that the Venezuela Additional Provisions apply. For clarity, the amendment also updates the transaction terms to reference the updated September 2017 ISDA Credit Derivatives Physical Settlement Matrix that takes into account the Venezuela Additional Provisions.
Similarly, ICE Clear Credit is amending Rule 26D-616, which applies to emerging market sovereign single-name CDS contracts. New subsection (c) provides that a sovereign single-name CDS contract referencing Venezuela will be amended, effective as of the Additional Provisions Effective Date, such that the Venezuela Additional Provisions apply. For clarity, the amendment also updates the transaction terms to reference the updated September 2017 ISDA Credit Derivatives Physical Settlement Matrix that takes into account the Venezuela Additional Provisions.
ICE Clear Credit believes that the proposed amendments are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
Moreover, the amendments are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(1),
ICE Clear Credit does not believe the proposed amendments would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The changes will apply to all clearing participants and other market participants. The changes are being proposed in order to comply with the Executive Order and are being made in conjunction with an industry-wide effort to amend relevant CDS contract terms. ICE Clear Credit does not believe the amendments will impact competition among clearing members or other market participants, affect the ability of market participants to access clearing generally, or affect the cost of clearing. ICE Clear Credit further believes that any impact on clearing results from the restrictions imposed under the Executive Order, and is necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with those restrictions.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2017-013 and should be submitted on or before November 13, 2017.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act and the relevant rules thereunder.
In addition, by amending its Rules to account for the Venezuela Sanctions described above, the Commission believes ICC's Rules will appropriately establish an enforceable legal framework with respect to the clearance of single-name and index CDS contracts referencing the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and that such framework is transparent as ICC's Clearing Members, as well as other industry participants generally, are aware of such sanctions and restrictions on the relevant contracts. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(1).
In its filing, ICC requested that the Commission grant accelerated approval of the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. Under Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act,
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act, for approving the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication in the
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the Requirements of the Act and the relevant rules thereunder.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 30, 2017, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
New EDGX Rule 21.20 establishes the following defined terms that will apply to the trading of complex orders: ABBO,
EDGX proposes to amend EDGX Rule 21.1 to add two new Times in Force that are not currently available on EDGX, Good Til Cancelled (“GTC”)
EDGX proposes to allow Members to submit limit and market complex orders,
EDGX will communicate to Members via specifications and/or Regulatory Circular when the complex order types, among those listed in EDGX Rule 21.20(b), are available for use on EDGX.
EDGX will determine and communicate to Members via specifications and/or Regulatory Circular which complex order origin codes (
Under the proposed rules, bids and offers on complex orders may be expressed in $0.01 increments, and the component(s) of a complex order may be executed in $0.01 increments, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise applicable to individual components of the complex order.
The Opening Process for the COB (“Opening Process”) will operate at the beginning of each trading session and upon re-opening after a halt.
Complex orders do not participate in the Opening Process for the individual option series conducted pursuant to EDGX Rule 21.7.
If there are complex orders that can match, the System will determine the equilibrium price where the most complex orders can trade.
Incoming complex orders will not be executed at prices inferior to the SBBO or at a price that is equal to the SBBO when there is a Priority Customer Order
Incoming complex orders that cannot be executed because the executions would be priced (i) outside of the SBBO, or (ii) equal to the SBBO due to a Priority Customer Order at the best SBBO price, will be cancelled if such complex orders are not eligible to be placed on the COB.
A complex order may be executed at a net credit or debit price against another complex order without giving priority to bids or offers established in the marketplace that are no better than the bids or offers comprising such net credit or debit; provided, however, that if any of the bids or offers established in the marketplace consist of a Priority Customer Order, at least one component of the complex strategy must trade at a price that is better than the corresponding BBO by at least a $0.01 increment.
Complex orders will be automatically executed against bids and offers on the COB in price priority, and bids and offers at the same price on the COB will be executed in time priority.
EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(4) sets forth the managed interest process that describes how the System handles a complex order that is not immediately executed upon receipt, including how such an order is priced and re-priced on the COB.
Under the managed interest process, a complex order that is resting on the COB and is either a complex market order, as described in EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(6), or a complex order with a limit price that locks or crosses the current opposite side SBBO when the SBBO is the best price, may be subject to the managed interest process for complex orders.
When the opposite side SBBO does not include a Priority Customer Order and is not available for execution in the ratio of the complex order, or cannot be executed through Legging with the Simple Book, as described in EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(2)(F), the System will place the complex order on the COB and display the booked complex order at a book and display price that will lock the current opposite side SBBO (
If the SBBO changes, the complex order's book and display price will continuously re-price to the new SBBO until: (i) The complex order has been
EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(5) describes how and when the System determines to execute or otherwise handle complex orders in the System.
EDGX Rule 21.20(c)6) describes the handling of complex market orders. Complex orders may be submitted as market orders and may be designated as COA-eligible.
EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(2)(F) describes the Legging process through which complex orders, under certain circumstances, are executed against the individual components of a complex strategy on the Simple Book.
EDGX Rule 21.20(d) describes the COA process. All option classes will be eligible to participate in a COA.
A “COA-eligible order” is a complex order that, as determined by the Exchange, is eligible to initiate a COA based upon the Member's instructions, the order's marketability (
To initiate a COA, a COA-eligible order must be designated as such (either affirmatively or by default)
Upon receipt of a COA-eligible order, EDGX will send a COA auction message to all subscribers to EDGX's data feeds that deliver COA Auction messages.
A Member with any origin code, including a Priority Customer, may submit a response to the COA auction message (a “COA Response”) during the Response Time Interval.
At the end of the Response Time Interval, COA-eligible orders may be executed in whole or in part against the best priced contra side interest.
The COA will terminate: (i) Upon receipt of a new non-COA-eligible order on the same side as the COA but with a better price, in which case the COA will be processed and the new order will be posted to the COB; (ii) if an order is received that would improve the SBBO on the same side as the COA in progress to a price better than the auction price, in which case the COA will be processed, the new order will be posted to the Simple Book and the SBBO will be updated; or (iii) if a Priority Customer Order is received that would join or improve the SBBO on the same side as the COA in progress to a price equal to or better than the auction price, in which case the COA will be processed, the new order will be posted to the Simple Book and the SBBO will be updated.
A complex strategy will not be executed at a net price that would cause any component of the complex strategy to be executed: (A) At a price of zero; or (B) ahead of a Priority Customer Order on the Simple Book without improving the BBO on at least one component of the complex strategy by at least $.01.
EDGX Rule 21.20, Interpretation and Policy .02 provides that a COA will be allowed to commence even when a COA for the same strategy is already underway.
EDGX has not proposed different standards for participation by Market Makers on the COB (
The proposal establishes several price and other protections for complex orders. Exchange believes that the complex order price protections will provide market participants with valuable price and order size protections to enable them to better manage their risk exposure when trading complex orders.
EDGX Rule 21.20, Interpretation and Policy .04 provides several price protection standards that are designed to ensure that certain types of complex strategies will not be executed outside of a preset standard minimum and/or maximum price limit.
Under the Credit-to-Debit parameter in EDGX Rule 21.20, Interpretation and Policy .04(b), market orders that would be executed at a net debit price after receiving a partial execution at a net credit price will be cancelled.
The System defines a complex order as a debit or credit as follows: (A) A call butterfly spread
The Buy Strategy Parameters in EDGX Rule 21.20, Interpretation and Policy .04(d) provide that the System will reject a limit order where all the components of the strategy are to buy and the order is priced at zero, any net credit price that exceeds a pre-set buffer, or a net debit price that is less than the number of individual option series legs in the strategy (or applicable ratio) multiplied by the applicable minimum net price increment for the complex order.
The Maximum Value Acceptable Price Range parameter in EDGX Rule 21.20, Interpretation and Policy .04(e) provides that the System will reject an order if the order is a vertical, true butterfly or box spread, or a limit order or market order if it would execute at a price that is outside of an acceptable price range.
EDGX Rule 21.20, Interpretation and Policy .04(f) establishes EDGX's Drill-Through Price Protection feature, a price protection mechanism applicable to all complex orders under which a buy (sell) order will not be executed at a price that is higher (lower) than the SNBBO or the SNBBO at the time of order entry plus (minus) a buffer amount (the “Drill-Through Price”).
EDGX proposes to add Interpretation and Policy .01 to EDGX Rule 21.16 to provide that complex orders will participate in EDGX's existing the Risk Monitor Mechanism. The Risk Monitor Mechanism functions by counting a member's executions, contract volume, and notional value both within a specified time period established by the member and on an absolute basis for the trading day.
In addition to the protections described above, EDGX proposes to establish the Fat Finger Price Protection and a complex order size protection.
Under the Fat Finger Price Protection, EDGX will define a price range outside of which the System will not accept a complex limit order.
Under the complex order size protection, the System will prevent certain complex orders from executing or being placed on the COB if the size of the complex order exceeds the complex order size protection designated by the Member.
EDGX Rule 21.20, Interpretation and Policy .05, describes the Exchange's handling of complex orders in the context of a trading halt. Under EDGX Rule 21.20, Interpretation and Policy .05(a), if a trading halt exists for the underlying security or a component of a complex strategy, trading in the complex strategy will be suspended and a Member's complex orders will be cancelled unless the Member has instructed the Exchange not to cancel its orders.
EDGX Rule 21.20, Interpretation and Policy .05(b) states that if, during a COA, any component(s) and/or the underlying security of a COA-eligible order is halted, the COA will end early without trading and all COA Responses will be cancelled. Remaining complex orders will be placed on the COB if eligible, or cancelled.
EDGX proposes to amend EDGX Rule 21.15(b) to specify the data feeds that EDGX proposes to adopt in connection with the proposal. EDGX currently offers a Multicast PITCH data feed and an Auction Feed.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The proposal adopts several defined terms related to the trading of complex orders. The Commission notes that EDGX's definition of complex order
EDGX states that it has designed its execution and priority rules to allow complex orders to interact with interest in the Simple Book and vice versa in an efficient and orderly manner.
EDGX proposes that complex orders will never be executed at a price that is outside of the individual component prices on the Simple Book.
As described more fully above, EDGX proposes to provide for Legging of complex orders into the Simple Book. The Commission believes that Legging could benefit investors by providing additional execution opportunities for both complex orders and interest on the Simple Book. In addition, the Commission believes that Legging could facilitate interaction between the COB and the Simple Book, potentially resulting in a more competitive and efficient market, and better executions for investors.
As discussed above, EDGX is proposing to prohibit Legging for: (i) Complex orders with two option legs where both legs are buying or both legs are selling and both legs are calls or both legs are puts, other than COA-eligible two-legged Customer complex orders; and (ii) complex orders with three option legs where all legs are buying or all legs are selling regardless of whether the option leg is a call or a put.
EDGX describes the Complex Order Auction Process in EDGX Rule 21.20(d). EDGX states that the auction process is designed to ensure that complex orders are given every opportunity to be executed at the best prices against an increased level of contra-side liquidity.
As noted above, EDGX will permit a COA for a strategy to begin even if another COA for that strategy is already underway.
As described above, EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(2)(A)-(D) sets forth EDGX's opening process for complex orders. The Commission believes that the opening process is designed to provide for the orderly opening of complex orders on EDGX. EDGX Rules 21.20(c)(4) and (5) describe, respectively, the managed interest process and the evaluation process for complex orders. The Commission believes that the managed interest process is designed to protect the priority of Priority Customer interest on the Simple Book and assure that complex orders do not trade through the prices of interest on the Simple Book for the component securities of the complex order. The Commission believes that the evaluation process is designed to facilitate the execution of complex
As described above, EDGX has not proposed different standards for participation by Market Makers on the COB. Market Makers are not required to quote on the COB and there are no continuous quoting requirements respecting complex orders.
EDGX's proposed price and order protection features are intended to provide market participants with price and order size protection to allow them to better manage their risk exposure.
As described above, EDGX proposes to make available various data feeds that will provide information regarding complex orders on EDGX. EDGX states that each of the proposed data feeds is based on and similar to an existing data feed offered by EDGX Options and/or the EDGX equities trading platform.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 964NY (Display, Priority and Order Allocation—Trading Systems). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of the filing is to amend Commentary .02 to NYSE American Options Rule 964NY (Display, Priority and Order Allocation—Trading Systems) regarding the Exchange's Self-Trade Prevention (“STP”) functionality.
The Exchange proposes to expand the self-trade functionality by adopting three STP modifiers. The proposed STP modifiers are designed to prevent incoming Market Maker order(s) or quote(s) designated with an STP modifier from executing against an opposite side resting Market Maker order(s) or quote(s) also designated with an STP modifier and entered from the same TPID. As proposed, the STP modifier on the incoming Market Maker order or quote would control the interaction between two orders and/or quotes marked with STP modifiers. The proposed STP modifiers are intended to prevent interaction between the same TPIDs. STP modifiers must be present on both the buy and the sell interest in order to prevent an interaction from occurring and to effect a cancel instruction.
The Exchange believes the proposed functionality will allow ATP Holders to better manage order flow and prevent undesirable or unexpected executions with themselves. Given enhancements in technology in today's trading environment, ATP Holders often have multiple connections into the Exchange. Orders, for example, routed by the same ATP Holder via different connections may, in certain circumstances, trade against each other. The proposed STP modifiers would provide ATP Holders the opportunity to prevent these potentially undesirable interactions occurring under the same TPID on both the buy and sell side of an execution.
The three new STP modifiers are discussed more thoroughly below.
An incoming order or quote marked with the STPN modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier from the same TPID. The incoming order or quote marked with the STPN modifier will be cancelled back to the originating TPID. The resting order(s) or quote(s) will remain on the Consolidated Book.
An incoming order or quote marked with the STPO modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest market with any STP modifier from the same TPID. The resting order(s) or quote(s) marked with the STP modifier will be cancelled back to the originating TPID. The incoming order or quote marked with the STPO modifier will remain on the Consolidated Book.
An incoming order or quote marked with the STPC modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier from the same TPID. The entire size of both orders and/or quotes will be cancelled back to the originating TPID.
As with the current functionality, the enhanced STP functionality would be in effect throughout the trading day for all Market Makers on the Exchange,
As proposed, the enhanced STP functionality would not be applicable to Qualified Contingent Cross (“QCC”) Orders,
The enhanced STP functionality proposed herein is similar to functionality currently offered by the Bats Exchange, Inc. (“Bats”).
The NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”) currently offers functionality that applies to orders and quotes, but in a limit manner.
The Exchange also proposes at this time to make a procedural change for announcements regarding the STP functionality. Presently the Exchange issues Regulatory Information Bulletins when making announcements related to STP functionality. Going forward, the Exchange proposes to issue a Trader Update in lieu of a Regulatory Information Bulletin. Regulatory Information Bulletins generally contain information regarding legal and regulatory matters while a Trader Update deals with issues such as trading, systems changes and real-time market announcements. The Exchange believes that it is more appropriate to make announcements regarding the STP functionality via Trader Update. Trader Updates, like Regulatory Information Bulletins, are electronically distributed to ATP Holders and posted on the Exchange's Web site. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .02 to current Rule 964NY by replacing reference to “Regulatory Information Bulletin” with “Trader Update.”
Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed rule change, the Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date of the proposed rule change, which will be no later than 60 days from the effective date of this rule filing.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade because it would provide Market Makers with a functionality that is similar to functionality currently available on other markets.
The Exchange notes that Market Makers have expressed an interest in the proposed functionality as it would prevent them from inadvertently trading with their own interest. In such a situation, ATP Holders currently ask the Exchange to nullify such inadvertent trades, which they are permitted to do under the Exchange's rules because the ATP Holder is on both sides of the trade.
Finally, the replacement of reference to Regulatory Information Bulletin with Trader Update, would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities as Trader Updates deal with issues such as trading, systems changes and real-time market announcements and are electronically distributed to ATP Holders and posted on the Exchange's Web site.
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 is designed to enhance STP functionality provided to Exchange Market Makers, and will benefit members that wish to protect their orders and quotes against trading with other orders and quotes that originate from the same TPID. The new functionality, which is similar to functionality currently offered on other markets, is also voluntary, and the Exchange therefore does not believe that providing an enhanced offering to prevent against self-trading will have any significant impact on competition. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is evidence of the competitive environment in the options industry where exchanges must continually improve their offerings to maintain competitive standing.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l
Form N-17f-2 (17 CFR 274.220) under the Investment Company Act is entitled “Certificate of Accounting of Securities and Similar Investments in the Custody of Management Investment Companies.” Form N-17f-2 is the cover sheet for the accountant examination certificates filed under rule 17f-2 (17 CFR 270.17f-2) by registered management investment companies (“funds”) maintaining custody of securities or other investments. Form N-17f-2 facilitates the filing of the accountant's examination certificates prepared under rule 17f-2. The use of the form allows the certificates to be filed electronically, and increases the accessibility of the examination certificates to both the Commission's examination staff and interested investors by ensuring that the certificates are filed under the proper Commission file number and the correct name of a fund.
Commission staff estimates that it takes: (i) On average 1.25 hours of fund accounting personnel at a total cost of $255 to prepare each Form N-17f-2;
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Complying with the collections of information required by Form N-17f-2 is mandatory for those funds that maintain custody of their own assets. Responses 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 control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4345-DR), dated 10/16/2017.
Issued on 10/16/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/16/2017, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 153648 and for economic injury is 153650.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4346-DR), dated 10/16/2017.
Issued on 10/16/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/16/2017, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 153668 and for economic injury is 153670.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of CALIFORNIA dated 09/26/2017.
Issued on 10/10/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of an Administrative declaration for the State of CALIFORNIA, dated 09/26/2017, is hereby amended to establish the incident closing date as 10/01/2017.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before November 22, 2017.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Annie Rorem, Senior Research Manager, National Women's Business Council,
NWBC is a non-partisan federal advisory council created to serve as an independent source of advice and counsel to the President, Congress, and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) on economic issues of importance to women business owners. The Council's mission is to promote initiatives, policies, and programs designed to support women's business enterprises at all stages of development in the public and private sector marketplaces—from start-up to success. NWBC is charged with providing sound policy advice related to its mission by statutory authority 15 U.S.C. 7105 and 15 U.S.C. 7109a, with conducting “such studies and other research relating to the award of federal prime contracts and subcontracts to women-owned businesses, to access to credit and investment capital by women entrepreneurs, or to other issues relating to women-owned businesses, as the Council determines to be appropriate.”
As part of its efforts, NWBC seeks to complement data resources available from the Census Bureau's Survey of Small Business Owners and Self-Employed Persons (SBO). Although the SBO is widely recognized as the most comprehensive, regularly collected source of information on selected economic and demographic characteristics for businesses and business owners by gender, ethnicity, race, and veteran status, the proposed NWBC information collection will add to the available data, in terms of both methodology and timeliness. A new annual Web survey, which will collect information across a representative sample of business owners, including both women and men, will enhance information gathering on factors such as challenges to business start-up and growth, motivation, and economic impacts related to women entrepreneurship in the United States. This survey will also provide a
The Department of State will conduct a public meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 14, 2017 in Room 5L18-01 of the Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building at St. Elizabeth's, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20593. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 29th Extraordinary Council Session (CES29), the 30th Assembly (A30), and the 119th Council Session (C119) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), to be held at the IMO Headquarters, United Kingdom, November 23-24; November 27-December 6; and December 7, respectively.
The agenda items for CES29 to be considered include:
The agenda items for A30 to be considered include:
The agenda for C119 has not yet been published, but traditionally includes:
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. To facilitate the building security process, and to request reasonable accommodation, those who plan to attend must contact the meeting coordinator, LCDR Staci Weist, by email at
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327.
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans, that are final. The actions relate to a proposed highway project, located on
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For Caltrans: Laura Loeffler, Senior Environmental Planner, California Department of Transportation- District 3, 703 B Street, Marysville, California 95901, during normal business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., telephone (530) 741-4592 or email
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that Caltrans, has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the project, approved on 8/31/2017, in the FHWA Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on 8/31/2017, and in other documents in the FHWA project records. The FEA, FONSI and other project records are available by contacting Caltrans at the addresses provided above. This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
23 U.S.C. 139(
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before November 22, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0175. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel HOPSCOTCH is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0175 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before November 22, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0173. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel FAMILY AFFAIR is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0173 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before November 22, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0174. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel FEATHER is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0174 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, 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 a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled “Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with Liquidity Coverage Ratio: Liquidity Risk Measurement, Standards, and Monitoring.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
You should submit written comments by November 22, 2017.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0323, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0323, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by email to
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. The OCC is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the following information collection.
The rule applies to large and internationally active banking organizations—generally, bank holding companies, certain savings and loan holding companies, and depository institutions with $250 billion or more in total assets or $10 billion or more in on-balance sheet foreign exposure—and to their consolidated subsidiaries that are depository institutions with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets.
Section 50.22 requires that, with respect to each asset eligible for inclusion in a national bank or federal savings association's (FSA's) high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) amount, the national bank or FSA must implement policies that require eligible HQLA to be under the control of the management function in the national bank or FSA responsible for managing liquidity risk. The management function must evidence its control over the HQLA by segregating the HQLA from other assets, with the sole intent to use the HQLA as a source of liquidity, or demonstrating the ability to monetize the assets and making the proceeds available to the liquidity management function without conflicting with a business or risk management strategy of the national bank or FSA. In addition, § 50.22 requires that a national bank or FSA have a documented methodology that results in a consistent treatment for determining that the national bank or FSA's eligible HQLA meet the requirements of § 50.22.
Section 50.40 requires that a national bank or FSA notify its appropriate federal banking agency on any day when its liquidity coverage ratio is calculated to be less than the minimum requirement in § 50.10. If a national bank or FSA's liquidity coverage ratio is below the minimum requirement in § 50.10 for three consecutive days, or if the OCC has determined that the institution is otherwise materially noncompliant, the national bank or FSA must promptly provide a plan for achieving compliance with the minimum liquidity requirement in § 50.10 and all other requirements of § 50.40 to the OCC.
The liquidity plan must include, as applicable: (1) An assessment of the national bank or FSA 's liquidity position; (2) the actions the national bank or FSA has taken and will take to achieve full compliance, including a plan for adjusting the national bank or FSA's risk profile, risk management, and funding sources in order to achieve full compliance and a plan for remediating any operational or management issues that contributed to noncompliance; (3) an estimated time frame for achieving full compliance; and (4) a commitment to provide a progress report to the OCC at least weekly until full compliance is achieved.
The OCC issued a notice for 60 days of comment regarding this collection on July 19, 2017, 82 FR 33202. No comments were received. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the information collection burden;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials will be held on October 31-November 1, 2017. The meeting sessions will take place at the Jefferson Barracks Medical Center, 1 Jefferson Barracks Drive, Building 56, St. Louis, MO 63125. Sessions are open to the public, except when the Committee is conducting tours of VA facilities, participating in off-site events, and participating in workgroup sessions. Tours of VA facilities are closed, to protect from disclosure Veterans' information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of national cemeteries, soldiers' lots and plots, the selection of new national cemetery sites, the erection of appropriate memorials, and the adequacy of Federal burial benefits. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
On the morning of Tuesday, October 31st, the Committee will convene with an open session at the Jefferson Barracks Medical Center, 1 Jefferson Barracks Drive, Building 56, St. Louis, MO 63125, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. central time. The agenda will include briefings on NCA Modernization efforts and Committee recommendations. In the afternoon, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., central time, the Committee will reconvene a closed session, as it tours the NCA National Training Center co-located at the meeting site and Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery at 2900 Sheridan Road, St. Louis, MO 63125.
On November 1st, the meeting will convene an open session at the Jefferson Barracks Medical Center, 1 Jefferson Barracks Drive, Building 56, St. Louis, MO 63125, from 8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. central time. The agenda will include a continuation of briefings on Committee
Time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the public each day. The dial-in number is 1-800-767-1750, access code 52799#.
a. persons in Cuba
b. persons in Eurasia and the Baltics
c. persons in Iraq
d. persons in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador
e. persons identified by a United States Embassy in any location, in exceptional circumstances.
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 |