| Page Range | 55027-55304 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 55303 - National Apprenticeship Week, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 55301 - American Education Week, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 55122 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science Board | |
| 82 FR 55119 - Notice of Entering Into a Compact With the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire | |
| 82 FR 55105 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Board Member Meeting | |
| 82 FR 55104 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 55124 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 55123 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 55053 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Exchange of Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 82 FR 55055 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Chinook Salmon Prohibited Species Catch Limits in the Gulf of Alaska | |
| 82 FR 55096 - Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 55110 - The Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, National Initiative for Cybersecurity Careers and Studies Cybersecurity Training and Education Catalog Collection | |
| 82 FR 55112 - Notice of Use Authorizations; Special Recreation Permits, Other Than on Developed Recreation Sites; Adjustment in Fees | |
| 82 FR 55079 - Notice of Request for a New Information Collection: Food Safety Behaviors and Consumer Education: Focus Group Research | |
| 82 FR 55154 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Forms 8609 and 8609A | |
| 82 FR 55114 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Surface Mining Permit Applications-Minimum Requirements for Reclamation and Operation Plan | |
| 82 FR 55114 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requirements for Coal Exploration | |
| 82 FR 55113 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requirements for Permits for Special Categories of Mining | |
| 82 FR 55078 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 55055 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 82 FR 55150 - Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation-Notice of Closed and Open Meetings for 2018 | |
| 82 FR 55102 - Matthew W. Foley, Elizabeth E. Rapalee; 8 Church Lane, LLC; Notice of Transfer of Exemption | |
| 82 FR 55102 - Consumers Energy Company, DTE Electric Company; Notice of Settlement Agreement and Soliciting Comments | |
| 82 FR 55081 - Announcement of Loan Application Procedures, and Deadlines for the Rural Energy Savings Program | |
| 82 FR 55093 - Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 55090 - Certain Steel Nails From Taiwan: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Determination in Less Than Fair Value Investigation and Notice of Amended Final Determination | |
| 82 FR 55091 - Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 55091 - Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations | |
| 82 FR 55149 - Defense Trade Advisory Group; Notice of Open Meeting | |
| 82 FR 55100 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 55097 - Town of Camden, Maine; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 82 FR 55098 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 82 FR 55103 - Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed North Fork Nooksack Line Lowering Project | |
| 82 FR 55101 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 55109 - Cooperative Research and Development Agreement-Robotic Aircraft for Sensors Program for Maritime | |
| 82 FR 55153 - Buy America Waiver Notification | |
| 82 FR 55111 - Notice of Proposed Filing of Plats of Survey: Montana | |
| 82 FR 55112 - Notice of Proposed Filing of Plats of Survey: Montana | |
| 82 FR 55096 - Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available for Licensing | |
| 82 FR 55105 - Receipt of Notice That a Patent Infringement Complaint Was Filed Against a Biosimilar Applicant | |
| 82 FR 55152 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Action on Proposed Highway in Arizona | |
| 82 FR 55155 - Reimbursement for Caskets and Urns for Burial of Unclaimed Remains in a National Cemetery or a VA-funded State or Tribal Veterans' Cemetery | |
| 82 FR 55105 - Medical Devices; Exemption From Premarket Notification: Over-the-Counter Denture Repair Kits | |
| 82 FR 55122 - Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 55154 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation Projects | |
| 82 FR 55115 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 82 FR 55116 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 82 FR 55100 - Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date; DTE Electric Company | |
| 82 FR 55098 - Public Notice of Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications | |
| 82 FR 55098 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Panda Hummel Station LLC | |
| 82 FR 55102 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 55099 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 55117 - Certain Personal Computers, Mobile Devices, Digital Media Players, and Microconsoles; Institution of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 55118 - Certain Gas Spring Nailer Products and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 55151 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 82 FR 55123 - Information Collection: NRC Form 354, Data Report on Spouse | |
| 82 FR 55074 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Modifications to Greater Amberjack Allowable Harvest and Rebuilding Plan | |
| 82 FR 55107 - Request for Public Comment: 60 Day Notice for Extension of the Indian Health Service Loan Repayment Program | |
| 82 FR 55151 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Bell Helicopter Textron | |
| 82 FR 55150 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Bell Helicopter Textron | |
| 82 FR 55064 - Fees; Correction | |
| 82 FR 55065 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arkansas; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 82 FR 55109 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 55108 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 55121 - NASA Heliophysics Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 55147 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of Specified Series of the Innovator Shield Strategy S&P 500 Monthly Index Series and Innovator Ultra Shield Strategy S&P 500 Monthly Index Series Under Rule 14.11(c)(3) | |
| 82 FR 55139 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Margin Framework and Default Fund Methodology for Options on Index Credit Default Swaps | |
| 82 FR 55145 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Transaction Fees at Rule 7018 To Change the Amounts of Certain Credits for Entering Orders That Access Liquidity in the Exchange's Equities System | |
| 82 FR 55148 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section VIII of the Nasdaq PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule | |
| 82 FR 55128 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7018 | |
| 82 FR 55094 - Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 55053 - Cost Standards and Procedures; Purchasing and Property Management; Correction | |
| 82 FR 55125 - Excepted Service | |
| 82 FR 55141 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to Proposed Rule Change in Connection With the Proposed Transaction Involving CHX Holdings, Inc. and North America Casin Holdings, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 55122 - NASA Advisory Council; Technology, Innovation and Engineering Committee; Meeting | |
| 82 FR 55137 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Fortieth Amendment to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis | |
| 82 FR 55130 - Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Twenty-Second Charges Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Thirteenth Charges Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan | |
| 82 FR 55094 - Publication of FY 2016 Service Contract Inventory | |
| 82 FR 55124 - Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Disclosure of Information in Distress and PBGC-Initiated Terminations | |
| 82 FR 55052 - Air Plan Approval; Delaware; State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone Standard; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule | |
| 82 FR 55053 - State of Iowa; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule; Elements of the Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5 | |
| 82 FR 55104 - Petition of the Coalition for Fair Port Practices for Rulemaking; Notice of Public Hearing and Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 55052 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Trading Programs; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule | |
| 82 FR 55045 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 82 FR 55047 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 82 FR 55049 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 82 FR 55043 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 82 FR 55060 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Selinsgrove, PA | |
| 82 FR 55061 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Moundsville, WV | |
| 82 FR 55042 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Boothville, LA | |
| 82 FR 55108 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences Notice of Organizational Change | |
| 82 FR 55158 - SES Positions That Were Career Reserved During CY 2016 | |
| 82 FR 55063 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Ohio Towns; Millersburg, OH and Coshocton, OH | |
| 82 FR 55057 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 55032 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 55040 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 55037 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 55027 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of slats disbonding on airplanes on which the terminating actions of AD 2005-07-08 had been performed. We have also received reports of slats disbonding on airplanes outside of the applicability of AD 90-23-06, AD 91-22-51, and AD 2005-07-08, which also addressed slat disbonding. This AD requires determining the type of trailing edge slat wedges of the leading edge slats, repetitive inspections for disbonding on certain trailing edge slat wedges, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective December 26, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 26, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of May 5, 2005 (70 FR 16403, March 31, 2005).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5239; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International and Boeing expressed support for the NPRM.
American Airlines (AAL) and Delta Air Lines (DAL) requested that we provide justification for the NPRM. AAL stated that the condition addressed by the NPRM is not an airplane-level safety issue, and does not meet the requirements for rulemaking activity because it does not correct an unsafe condition. DAL stated that Boeing's assessment, based on a piloted simulation study and pilot comments from flight testing, determined that the loss of slat wedges for slats 1 through 10 is a non-airplane-safety issue.
We infer that the commenters request that we withdraw the NPRM. We do not agree with the commenters' request. We have assessed the safety concern and have determined that there is insufficient flight test data to substantiate flight control authority to counteract rolling moment due to the loss of a slat trailing edge wedge. The Boeing analysis did not address maneuvering flight and critical (minimum) speeds or altitudes for recovery. We have therefore determined
FedEx Express (FedEx) requested that we clarify whether the FedEx Model 757 fleet is affected by the NPRM. FedEx stated that paragraph (c) of the proposed AD does not reflect the FedEx Model 757-200 converted freighter configuration via supplemental type certificate (STC) ST03562AT (
We agree that clarification is necessary. Paragraph (c) of this AD includes all Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes in the applicability. FedEx airplanes were originally delivered as Model 757-200 series airplanes; installation of the freighter conversion supplemental type certificate on those airplanes does not change their airplane model designation. Therefore, Model 757-200 series airplanes that are converted to a freighter configuration are included in the applicability of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
United Parcel Service (UPS), United Airlines (UAL), and DAL requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to specify that the inspection of each trailing edge slat wedge of the leading edge slats is done in accordance with the “applicable” Appendixes A, B, C, and D of the service information. The commenters explained that not all of the appendixes of the service information are applicable to each slat.
We agree with the commenters' request because each appendix applies only to inboard slats or outboard slats. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly.
AAL requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD with specific wording to address operator-produced-and-modified slat wedges that carry owner-operator part numbers that are not addressed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-57-0066, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2016 (“Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1”). AAL explained that many operators have produced slat wedges internally, and there is no wording in the proposed AD to indicate how operator-produced wedges should be handled for inspections, terminating action, or parts installation limitations.
We agree to revise paragraph (g) of this AD by adding that if a physical inspection cannot determine if a slat wedge is a type A or type B slat wedge, it must be assumed to be a type A slat wedge, or an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) can be requested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
UPS stated that FAA-approved SRM allowable damage and repairs must coincide fully with the service information specifications. UPS provided several examples of differences between the SRM and the service information.
Boeing has informed us that a new revision of the SRM was released on September 20, 2017, to specify actions that are consistent with Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1. The new SRM revision will have the same procedures for type A and type B wedges, but different limitations. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
FedEx and
We agree to clarify the compliance times in this AD. The flight cycles in Table 6 of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, are component flight cycles. Table 6 of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, specifies the initial compliance time as “Within 600 Trailing Edge Wedge flight cycles or within 6 months after the disbond is repaired or any previously accomplished repair is found, whichever occurs first” and, for the repetitive interval, specifies “600 Trailing Edge Wedge flight cycles or 6 months, whichever occurs first.” If the trailing edge wedge is moved between airplanes, the flight cycles on the trailing edge wedge need to be tracked separately from the airplane flight cycles.
We disagree with the commenter's statements that the 6-month compliance time for the repetitive interval is intended to be 6 months while the component is installed on-wing. The 6-month calendar time limitation is necessary because bonding corrosion is a primary component of damage growth and corrosion might occur while the component is off-wing. We have coordinated this calendar time limitation with Boeing. It is not necessary to inspect a slat wedge during its time in storage, but if the inspection interval has been surpassed, the wedge would require inspection before being returned to service. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
FedEx requested that we revise the language in paragraph (l) of the proposed AD from terminating the requirements of other ADs to superseding the requirements in the other ADs. FedEx provided no technical justification for its request.
We do not agree with the commenter's request to revise the language in paragraph (l) of this AD. We use the terminology “supersedes” only if an AD action supersedes an existing AD. This AD is a stand-alone AD. As specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD (which we referred to as paragraph (l) of the proposed AD), accomplishing initial inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD on a trailing edge slat wedge terminates all requirements of AD 90-23-06, AD 91-22-51, and AD 2005-07-08 for that slat wedge. We have also added paragraph (l)(2) to this AD to clarify that accomplishing the initial inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD on all trailing edge slat wedges terminates all requirements of AD 90-23-06, AD 91-22-51, and AD 2005-07-08 for that airplane. The parts installation limitation specified in paragraph (m) of this AD will then prohibit subsequent installation of parts that have not met those requirements. After the compliance times of this AD have passed, we may consider rescinding AD 90-23-06, AD 91-22-51, and AD 2005-07-08.
UPS requested that we revise the terminating action in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD by adding the statement “or by determining in
We agree with UPS's request. A physical inspection in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, is also a way to determine the wedge type. We have revised paragraph (k) of this AD accordingly.
AAL requested that the terminating action in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD include not only installation of Boeing type B wedges, but also installation of any operator-produced or -modified wedge that includes the corrosion prevention features of the Boeing type B wedge.
DAL requested that the terminating action specified in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD be revised to include any FAA-approved repairs to a slat trailing edge wedge that results in a wedge produced to the same build standards as a type B wedge.
We do not agree with the commenters' request. The addition of corrosion prevention features on an operator-produced or -modified wedge is not by itself sufficient to make the wedge a type B wedge. Any operator-produced or -modified wedge must pass all checks in Appendix B or C (outboard slats) or Appendix A (inboard slats) of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1. The operator may request approval of an AMOC by providing data to substantiate that the wedge is produced or modified to the Boeing drawing equivalent to a type B wedge. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
DAL stated that it considers the terminating actions of paragraphs (h) and (j) of AD 2005-07-08, and the terminating actions of the proposed AD to be equivalent. As a result, DAL requested that these inconsistencies be resolved within the AD to substantiate the need for another AD on Model 757-200 airplane slats.
We partially agree with DAL's request. We agree that paragraph (j) of AD 2005-07-08 and the terminating action of this AD are equivalent. Both are replacement of wedges with type B wedges. We disagree that paragraph (h) in AD 2005-07-08 and the terminating actions of this AD are equivalent. The wedge installed as terminating action in paragraph (h) of AD 2005-07-08 did not have the core that addressed the disbond issue. We have revised paragraph (k) of this AD to include replacement of wedges with type B wedges as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-57A0063, dated June 26, 2003.
FedEx requested that spares availability be evaluated prior to AD release to reduce the potential for hardship to the operators.
We infer that the operator is concerned that there may be an insufficient supply of replacement parts available to operators. Boeing has indicated that there is a supply of new slat wedges available and that operators have rebuilt slat wedges. The need for new replacement parts is further mitigated by the allowance for operators to use serviceable parts. There is also a Boeing part demand intent form in Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1 to help Boeing predict the quantity and timing needed for Boeing-supplied parts if operators have a concern that their new part replacement needs may exceed the timely replacement of new parts. Operators concerned about spare parts should proactively provide this information to Boeing. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that installation of winglets per supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.
We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a “change in product” AMOC approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the 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 final rule.
We reviewed Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1. The service information describes procedures for doing inspections on trailing edge slat wedges of the leading edge slats for areas of skin-to-core and aft edge disbonding, and corrective actions including replacement of certain slat wedges. 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 will affect 469 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
The on-condition costs are an estimate of the cost of replacing a type A wedge with a type B wedge, which is a terminating action for the required inspections. There are up to 10 wedge assemblies per airplane, and the price range for a new assembly is $50,923 to $84,636 based on the information provided by Boeing.
The cost of repairing a type A wedge cannot be estimated because damage type and size may vary widely.
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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 26, 2017.
This AD affects AD 90-23-06, Amendment 39-6794 (55 FR 46499, November 5, 1990) (“AD 90-23-06”); AD 91-22-51, Amendment 39-8129 (57 FR 781, January 9, 1992) (“AD 91-22-51”); and AD 2005-07-08, Amendment 39-14032 (70 FR 16403, March 31, 2005) (“AD 2005-07-08”).
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE [
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of slats disbonding on airplanes on which the terminating actions of AD 2005-07-08 had been performed. We have also received reports of slats disbonding on airplanes outside of the applicability of AD 90-23-06, AD 91-22-51, and AD 2005-07-08, which also addressed slat disbonding. We are issuing this AD to prevent delamination of the trailing edge slat wedges of the leading edge slats. This delamination could cause loss of pieces of the trailing edge slat wedge assemblies during flight, reduction of the maneuver and stall margins, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-57-0066, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2016 (“Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1”), except as specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Inspect each trailing edge slat wedge of the leading edge slats in accordance with Appendixes A, B, C, and D of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, as applicable, or review the airplane maintenance records, to determine whether the slat wedge is a type A or a type B. If a maintenance records review cannot conclusively determine a slat wedge is a type B, it must be assumed to be a type A slat wedge, or a physical inspection must be done as specified in this paragraph. If a physical inspection cannot determine if a slat wedge is a type A or type B slat wedge, it must be assumed to be a type A slat wedge, or approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) may be requested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
For each type A trailing edge slat wedge found during the inspection or records review required by paragraph (g) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, except as specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, do an ultrasonic low frequency bond test inspection, a tap test inspection, or a through transmission ultrasonic (TTU) inspection for skin-to-core disbonds of the honeycomb area of the trailing edge slat wedge; do a detailed inspection for aft edge disbonds of the aft edge of the trailing edge slat wedge; do a general visual inspection for any previously accomplished repair; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, except as specified in paragraphs (i) and (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1. Repeat the applicable inspections on each type A trailing edge slat wedge thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1.
(1) For each type A trailing edge slat wedge with any class 1 disbond repair or any previously accomplished repair subject to the Part 2 inspection as identified in Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, do an ultrasonic low frequency bond test inspection, a tap test inspection, or a TTU inspection for skin-to-core disbonds in the repaired area of the trailing edge slat wedge; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, except as specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspection on each type A trailing edge slat wedge thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1.
(2) For each type A trailing edge slat wedge with any time-limited class 2 disbond repair as identified in Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, do a detailed inspection for any peeling or deterioration of the aluminum foil tape of the repaired area on the trailing edge slat wedge; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, except as specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspection on each type A trailing edge slat wedge thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, until a permanent repair is done to complete the actions required for the time-limited class 2 disbond repair, specified as corrective actions in paragraph (h) of this AD.
(3) For each type A trailing edge slat wedge with any permanent class 2 disbond repair as identified in Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, do an ultrasonic low frequency bond test inspection or a TTU inspection for any disbonding of the aft edge repaired areas; a detailed inspection for disbonds along the aft edge of the repaired areas; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, except as specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspection on each type A trailing edge slat wedge thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1.
(4) For each type A trailing edge slat wedge with any class 3 or class 4 disbond repair, or any previously accomplished repair subject to Part 5 inspection as identified in Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD.
(i) For any class 3 disbond repair with a repair doubler common to the aft edge of the trailing edge slat wedge; for any previously accomplished repair with a repair doubler common to the aft edge of the trailing edge slat wedge; and for any class 4 disbond repair: Do an ultrasonic low frequency bond test inspection or a TTU inspection for any disbonding of the aft edge repaired areas; a detailed inspection for disbonds along the aft edge of the repaired areas; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, except as specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspection on each type A trailing edge slat wedge thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1.
(ii) For any class 3 disbond repair without a repair doubler common to the aft edge of the trailing edge slat wedge; and for any previously accomplished repair without a repair doubler common to the aft edge of the trailing edge slat wedge: Do an ultrasonic low frequency bond test inspection, a tap test inspection, or a TTU inspection for skin-to-core disbonds of the honeycomb area of the trailing edge slat wedge in the repaired area; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, except as specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspection on each type A trailing edge slat wedge thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1.
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) If any disbonding is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the disbonding using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
Replacing a type A trailing edge slat wedge with a type B trailing edge slat wedge terminates the repetitive inspections required by this AD for that wedge if the replacement is done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066 R1; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-57A0063, dated June 26, 2003; or by determining, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing SASB 757-57-0066, Rl, Appendixes A, B, C, and D (as applicable), that the current wedge installed on the slat is a type B.
(1) Accomplishing the initial inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD on a trailing edge slat wedge terminates all of the requirements of AD 90-23-06, AD 91-22-51, and AD 2005-07-08 for that slat wedge.
(2) Accomplishing the initial inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD on all trailing edge slat wedges terminates all of the requirements of AD 90-23-06, AD 91-22-51, and AD 2005-07-08.
As of the effective date of this AD: A replacement type A wedge may be installed provided that the initial and repetitive inspections and all applicable related investigative and corrective actions specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD are done within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (o) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (n)(4)(i) and (n)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5239; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on December 26, 2017.
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-57-0066, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 5, 2005 (70 FR 16403, March 31, 2005).
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-57A0063, dated June 26, 2003.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
(6) 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.
(7) 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; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-19-17, which applied to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. AD 2017-19-17 required revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to include procedures to follow when an airplane is operating in icing conditions. AD 2017-19-17 also required a detailed inspection of the wing anti-ice system ducting for the presence of a diaphragm, and follow-on actions (replacement of ducting or re-identification of the ducting part marking). This new AD retains the actions required by AD 2017-19-17, and corrects the follow-on actions for certain airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that the follow-on actions specified in AD 2017-19-17 were incorrect for certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective December 1, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 27, 2017 (82 FR 44305, September 22, 2017).
We must receive comments on this AD by January 2, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this 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 AD 2017-19-17, Amendment 39-19047 (82 FR 44305, September 22, 2017) (“AD 2017-19-17”), which applied to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. AD 2017-19-17 superseded AD 2016-17-02, Amendment 39-18615 (81 FR 55366, August 19, 2016). AD 2017-19-17 was prompted by a design review of in-production airplanes that identified a deficiency in certain wing anti-ice system ducting. AD 2017-19-17 required revision of the AFM to include procedures to follow when an airplane is operating in icing conditions, the detailed inspection of the wing anti-ice system ducting for the presence of a diaphragm, and replacement of ducting or re-identification of the ducting part marking. We issued AD 2017-19-17 to detect and correct a deficiency in the wing anti-ice system ducting, which could result in reduced performance of the wing anti-ice system with potential ice accretion and ingestion, and could result in degraded engine power and degraded handling characteristics.
Since we issued AD 2017-19-17, we found that the follow-on actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of AD 2017-19-17 are correct for Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. However, for Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes, the follow-on actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of AD 2017-19-17 would be dependent on different conditions than those specified for Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. This AD corrects those actions for Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency AD 2016-0130-E, dated July 5, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states:
A design review of in production aeroplanes identified a manufacturing deficiency of some wing anti-ice system ducting.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an undetected reduced performance of the wing anti-ice system, with potential ice accretion and ingestion, possibly resulting in degraded engine power and degraded handling characteristics.
The Falcon 900EX EASY and Falcon * * * [2000EX] Aircraft Flight Manuals (AFM) contain a normal procedure 4-200-05A, “Operations in Icing Conditions”, addressing minimum fan speed rotation (N1) during combined operation of wing anti-ice and engine anti-ice systems. The subsequent investigation demonstrated that the wing anti-ice system performance for aeroplanes equipped with ducting affected by the manufacturing deficiency can be restored increasing N1 value. In addition, Dassault Aviation published Service Bulletin (SB) F900EX-464 (for Falcon 900EX aeroplanes) and SB F2000EX-393 (for Falcon 2000EX aeroplanes), providing instructions for wing anti-ice system ducting inspection.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires an AFM amendment and a one-time [detailed] inspection of the wing anti-ice system ducting [and, as applicable, a check of the part number,] and, depending on findings, re-identification or replacement of the wing anti-ice system ducting.
You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F900EX-464, dated June 20, 2016; and Service Bulletin F2000EX-393, dated June 20, 2016. This service information describes procedures for an inspection of the wing anti-ice system ducting and re-identification or replacement of the wing anti-ice system ducting. 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
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
We determined that AD 2017-19-17 contains an error in the description of follow-on actions that could allow the identified unsafe condition to continue for Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This AD corrects the follow-on actions for the Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes. No other changes have been made to AD 2017-19-17. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The action required by AD 2017-19-17, and retained in this AD, takes about 5 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the action that is required by AD 2017-19-17 is $425 per product. This AD adds no new economic burden to AD 2017-19-17.
We also estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 19 work-hours and require parts costing $24,000, for a cost of $25,615 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
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
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 December 1, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2017-19-17, Amendment 39-19047 (82 FR 44305, September 22, 2017) (“AD 2017-19-17”).
This AD applies to the Dassault Aviation airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, serial numbers (S/Ns) 270 through 291 inclusive and 294.
(2) Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes, S/Ns 263 through 305 inclusive, 307 through 313 inclusive, 315, 320, and 701 through 734 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and rain protection.
This AD was prompted by a design review of in-production airplanes that identified a deficiency in certain wing anti-ice system ducting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a deficiency in the wing anti-ice system ducting, which could result in reduced performance of the wing anti-ice system with potential ice accretion and ingestion, and could result in degraded engine power and degraded handling characteristics.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2017-19-17, with no changes.
(1) For Model FALCON 900EX airplanes on which the actions specified in Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-464 have not been accomplished: Within 10 flight cycles after September 6, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-17-02, Amendment 39-18615 (81 FR 55366, August 19, 2016) (“AD 2016-17-02”)), revise Section 4-200-05A, “OPERATION IN ICING CONDITIONS,” of the Model FALCON 900EX AFM to include the information in figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, and thereafter operate the airplane accordingly. The AFM revision may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.
(2) For Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes on which the actions specified in Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-393 have not been accomplished: Within 10 flight cycles after September 6, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-17-02), revise Section 4-200-05A, “OPERATION IN ICING CONDITIONS,” of the Model FALCON 2000EX AFM to include the information in figure 2 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, and thereafter operate the airplane accordingly. The AFM revision may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2017-19-17, with revised affected airplanes. For Model FALCON 900EX airplanes: Within 9 months after October 27, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-19-17), do a detailed inspection of the wing anti-ice system ducting (anti-ice pipe) for the presence of a diaphragm, and do
(1) If during the inspection required by the introductory text to paragraph (h) of this AD it is determined that a diaphragm is present: Before further flight, replace the wing anti-ice system ducting.
(2) If during the inspection required by the introductory text to paragraph (h) of this AD it is determined that a diaphragm is not present: Before further flight, do a check of the anti-ice pipe part number and re-identify the wing anti-ice system ducting.
For Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes: Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the wing anti-ice system ducting (anti-ice pipe) for the presence of a diaphragm, and do all applicable actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-393, dated June 20, 2016. After the applicable actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD have been completed, the AFM revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD may be removed from the AFM for that airplane.
(1) If during the inspection required by the introductory text to paragraph (i) of this AD it is determined that a diaphragm is not present: Before further flight, replace the wing anti-ice system ducting.
(2) If during the inspection required by the introductory text to paragraph (i) of this AD it is determined that a diaphragm is present: Before further flight, do a check of the anti-ice pipe part number and re-identify the wing anti-ice system ducting.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Emergency AD 2016-0130-E, dated July 5, 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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 27, 2017 (82 FR 44305, September 22, 2017).
(i) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-464, dated June 20, 2016.
(ii) Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F2000EX-393, dated June 20, 2016.
(4) 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
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found in the lower chord of the left wing rear spar. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the lower chord of the rear spar and lower aft skin and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective December 26, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 26, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the lower chord of the rear spar and the lower aft skin at WBL 157.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comments received.
The Boeing Company supported the NPRM.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.
We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the change described previously 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 final rule.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1333, dated May 12, 2017. This service information describes procedures for repetitive LFEC inspections for cracking of the lower chord of the rear spar and detailed inspections for cracking of the lower aft skin at WBL 157, applicable on-condition actions (
We estimate that this AD affects 190 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.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the instructions for airplanes that have an existing repair in the inspection area 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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 26, 2017.
None.
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by the report of a crack indication in the horizontal flange of the lower chord of the left wing rear spar at wing buttock line (WBL) 157 and multiple reports of similar crack findings on other airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the lower chord of the rear spar and the lower aft skin at WBL 157. Undetected cracks could lead to the inability of the lower chord of the rear spar, a principal structural element, to sustain limit load, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1333, dated May 12, 2017: Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1333, dated May 12, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1333, dated May 12, 2017.
(2) For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1333, dated May 12, 2017: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane and do all applicable corrective actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1333, dated May 12, 2017, uses the phrase “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD, the phrase “after the effective date of this AD” must be used.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1333, dated May 12, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1333, dated May 12, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant) and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that the bushing holes on the engine mount rib might not conform to the engineering drawings and that certain inspections of the engine mount rib must be included in the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA). This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certain airworthiness limitation items (ALIs). We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective December 26, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, New York Aircraft ACO Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant) and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-09R1, dated June 29, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant) and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The MCAI states:
The aeroplane manufacturer has determined that the bushing holes on the engine mount rib may not conform to the engineering drawings. Non-conforming bushing holes could increase loading on adjacent fasteners, resulting in premature fatigue cracking of the engine mount rib.
In addition, it was also discovered that the inspection requirements for the engine mount rib were not listed in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
Failure of the engine mount rib could compromise the structural integrity of the engine mount and could lead to subsequent detachment of an engine.
A new Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC) Airworthiness Limitations (AWL) task is introduced to ensure that any fatigue cracking of the engine mount rib is detected and corrected.
The original issue of this [Canadian] AD mandated the incorporation of a new TLMC AWL task [into the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable].
Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to remove model CL-600-1A11 (600) aeroplanes from the Applicability section of the [Canadian] AD since this model was incorrectly included in the original issue.
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.
Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier) and NetJets Inc. (NetJets) requested that we revise paragraph (c)(3) of the proposed AD. The commenters explained that the Applicability should specify Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 5301 through 5665 inclusive, and S/Ns 5701 through 5990 inclusive; instead of Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, having S/Ns 5301 through 5665 inclusive, and S/Ns 5701 and subsequent.
Bombardier stated that “Challenger 650” is a marketing designation for Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes starting at S/N 6050, and “Challenger 605” is a marketing designation for Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes having S/Ns 5701 to 5990. Bombardier and NetJets stated that future Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes having serial numbers subsequent to S/N 5990 do not require the proposed actions, explaining that task 54-50-00-103 (inspections of the engine mount rib) was first incorporated into the Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC) manual for Challenger 650 airplanes. Therefore, Bombardier asserts that operators of Challenger 650 airplanes should not be required to comply with the AD.
We agree with the commenters' requests. We have coordinated with TCCA and have verified that Model CL-
Bombardier requested that more details be provided on how to meet the intent of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, which specifies contacting the FAA for a MOC for revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate maintenance tasks. Bombardier suggested that the AD should specify the revisions in which the tasks were incorporated into the TLMC manual. Bombardier also suggested that this would prevent operators with a proper TLMC from being subject to a future AD. Bombardier stated that the AD should specify the tasks to be incorporated in the maintenance schedule, in order to provide operators with a sufficient level of detail on the revisions to be made to their maintenance or inspection program.
NetJets requested that we identify the specific tasks that are to be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program. NetJets noted that the MCAI provides the specific task numbers.
We partially agree. We agree that operators need to know which actions must be incorporated into their maintenance or inspection programs. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to identify the actions that must be incorporated.
We do not agree to identify specific TLMC revisions in this AD. The service information specified in Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD provides guidance on the required actions. However, to specify the service information in paragraph (g) of this AD would require it to be incorporated by reference in this AD. The service information identified in this AD does not meet the Office of the Federal Register's criteria for materials incorporated by reference. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.
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.
We estimate that this AD affects 129 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 December 26, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc., airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes, having serial numbers (S/Ns) 3001 through 3066 inclusive.
(2) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes, having S/Ns 5001 through 5194 inclusive.
(3) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes having S/Ns 5301 through 5665 inclusive, and S/Ns 5701 through 5990 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic inspections.
This AD was prompted by a determination that the bushing holes on the engine mount rib may not conform to the engineering drawings and that certain inspections of the engine mount rib must be included in the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of an engine mount rib. Failure of an engine mount rib could compromise the structural integrity of the engine mount and could lead to subsequent detachment of an engine.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate inspections for fatigue cracking of the engine mount rib and corrective actions, as applicable, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA.
Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Guidance can be found in Tasks 54-10-00-106 and 54-50-00-103 of Chapter 5 of the Bombardier Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC) Manual PSP 601-5 (for Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant) airplanes); Bombardier TLMC Manual PSP 601A-5 (for CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes); Bombardier TLMC Manual CL-604 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, S/Ns 5301 through 5665 inclusive); and Bombardier TLMC Manual CL-605 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, S/Ns 5701 through 5990).
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-09R1, dated June 29, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, New York Aircraft ACO Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Boothville Heliport, Boothville, LA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new special instrument approach procedures developed at Boothville Heliport, for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the heliport.
Effective 0901 UTC, February 1, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5900.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the
The FAA published in the
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 Boothville Heliport, Boothville, LA, to accommodate new special instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
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.
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, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Boothville Heliport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective November 20, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 20, 2017.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
RESCINDED: On October 19, 2017 (82 FR 48611), the FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 31157, Amdt No. 3767 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.23, 97.29, 97.33, 97.37. The following entries for Sacramento, CA, West Palm Beach, FL, and Norfolk, VA, effective December 7, 2017, are hereby rescinded in their entirety:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective November 20, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums,
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 20, 2017.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective November 20, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 20, 2017.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore— (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective November 20, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 20, 2017.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to adverse comments received, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the September 27, 2017 direct final rule that approved a revision to the Delaware state implementation plan (SIP) related to the interstate transport of air pollution for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA stated in the direct final rule that if EPA received adverse comments by October 27, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received adverse comments. EPA will address the comments received in a subsequent final rulemaking action based upon the proposed approval action for the same SIP submittal which was also published on September 27, 2017. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.
The direct final rule published at 82 FR 44932 on September 27, 2017 is withdrawn effective November 20, 2017.
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787 or at
The SIP revision was formally submitted by the State of Delaware, through the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), on March 27, 2013. The March 2013 SIP revision was submitted in order to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The September 27, 2017 direct final rule action addressed one portion of the March 2013 submittal, finding that Delaware has fully satisfied prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA had previously acted on other portions of Delaware's March 27, 2013 SIP submittal.
In the direct final rule published on September 27, 2017 (82 FR 44932), EPA stated that if the Agency received adverse comment by October 27, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received adverse comments from anonymous commenters. As a result of the comments received, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule approving the revision to the Delaware SIP to reflect the interstate transport of air pollution for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA will respond to the adverse comments in a subsequent final rulemaking action.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the September 28, 2017 direct final rule (DFR) that approved a revision to the Virginia state implementation plan (SIP). The revision removed from the Virginia SIP regulations from the Virginia Administrative Code that established EPA-administered trading programs under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which were discontinued on December 31, 2014 upon the implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). EPA stated in the direct final rule that if EPA received adverse comments by October 30, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received an adverse comment. EPA will address the comments received in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also published on September 28, 2017. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.
The direct final rule published at 82 FR 45187 on September 28, 2017 is withdrawn effective November 20, 2017.
Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by email at
On January 5, 2017, the Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), submitted a SIP revision (Revision D16) that requested removal from its SIP of Virginia Administrative Code regulations that implemented the CAIR annual nitrogen oxide (NO
EPA had approved Virginia's SIP revision removing the CAIR annual NO
As a result of the comments received, EPA is withdrawing the DFR approving Virginia's SIP revision related to the removal of the CAIR annual NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to an adverse comment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the direct final rule for “Approval of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Elements of the Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM
The direct final rule published at 82 FR 45479, September 29, 2017, is withdrawn effective November 20, 2017.
Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7039, or by email at
Due to an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule to approve revisions to the Iowa State Implementation Plan (SIP). In the direct final rule published on September 29, 2017, (82 FR 45479), we stated that if we received adverse comment by October 30, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received an adverse comment. EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also published on September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45550). EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Legal Services Corporation.
Final rule; correction.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Effective December 31, 2017.
Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St. NW., Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295-1563;
In FR Doc. 2017-16764 appearing on page 37327 of the
(b)
(i) A single purchase or single lease of personal property;
(ii) A single contract for services;
(iii) A single combined purchase or lease of personal property and contract for services; and
(iv) Capital improvements.
(2) Without LSC's prior written approval, a recipient may not expend LSC funds on a purchase of real estate.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is exchanging allocations of Amendment 80 cooperative quota (CQ) for Amendment 80 acceptable biological catch (ABC) reserves. This action is necessary to allow the 2017 total allowable catch of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area to be harvested.
Effective November 20, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2017 flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole Amendment 80 allocations of the total allowable catch (TAC) specified in the BSAI are 8,949 metric tons (mt), 37,060 mt, and 114,871 mt as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017). The 2017 flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves are 48,024 mt, 96,444 mt, and 95,372 mt as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017).
The Alaska Seafood cooperative has requested that NMFS exchange 2,500 mt of rock sole Amendment 80 allocations of the TAC for 500 mt of flathead sole and 2,000 mt of yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves under § 679.91(i). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.91(i), NMFS exchanges 2,500 mt of rock sole Amendment 80 allocations of the TAC for 500 mt of flathead sole and 2,000 mt of yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves in the BSAI. This action also decreases and increases the TACs and Amendment 80 ABC reserves by the corresponding amounts. Tables 11 and 13 of the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) and as revised (82 FR 51168, November 3, 2017) are further revised as follows:
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the flatfish exchange by the Alaska Seafood cooperative the BSAI. Since these fisheries are currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Eastern Aleutian district (EAI) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2017 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean perch in the EAI allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), November 15, 2017, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2017.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
The 2017 TAC of Pacific ocean perch, in the EAI, allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery was established as a directed fishing allowance of 695 metric tons by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the EAI by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.
After the effective dates of this closure, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of the Pacific ocean perch directed fishery in the EAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of November 14, 2017. The Acting AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.
NMFS is reapportioning the projected unused amount, 404 Chinook salmon prohibited species catch limit, from the vessels participating in directed fishing for pollock in the Central Regulatory area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) to vessels participating in directed fishing for pollock in the Western Regulatory area of the GOA. This action is necessary to provide opportunity for harvest of the 2017 pollock TAC, consistent with the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), November 15, 2017, until 2400 hours A.l.t., December 31, 2017.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The annual PSC limit of Chinook salmon vessels participating in directed fishing for pollock in the Central Regulatory area of the GOA is 18,316
The 2017 Chinook salmon PSC limits are revised as follows: 17,912 Chinook salmon for vessels participating in directed fishing for pollock in the Central Regulatory area of the GOA (18,316 minus 404 Chinook salmon) and 7,088 Chinook salmon for vessels participating in the directed fishery for pollock in the Western Regulatory area of the GOA (6,684 plus 404 Chinook salmon).
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would provide opportunity to harvest remaining pollock in the Western Regulatory area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of November 14, 2017.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to include new airworthiness limitations. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 4, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6498; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a final rule titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, that rule included Amendment 21-78, which established Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88”) at 14 CFR part 21. Subsequently, SFAR 88 was amended by Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 20, 2002; corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002) and Amendment 21-83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to change “21-82” to “21-83”).
Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (
In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the
This proposed AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct potential ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016, which addresses fuel tank systems and impact-resistant fuel tank access doors. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to add airworthiness limitations specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
AD 2008-04-11 R1, Amendment 39-16147 (74 FR 68505, December 28, 2009) (“AD 2008-04-11 R1”), applies to all The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. AD 2008-04-11 R1 requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Accomplishing the actions specified in this proposed AD would terminate all requirements of AD 2008-04-11 R1.
AD 2013-24-07, Amendment 39-17681 (78 FR 72550, December 3, 2013) (“AD 2013-24-07”), applies to all The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. AD 2013-24-07 requires an inspection of the left- and right-hand wing fuel tank access doors to determine that impact-resistant access doors are installed in the correct locations, and to replace any door with an impact-resistant access door if necessary; an inspection for stencils and index markers on impact-resistant access doors, and application of new stencils or index markers if necessary; and revision of the maintenance program to incorporate changes to the airworthiness limitations section. Accomplishing the actions specified in this proposed AD would terminate the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-24-07.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by January 4, 2018.
This AD affects the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD.
(1) AD 2008-04-11 R1, Amendment 39-16147 (74 FR 68505, December 28, 2009) (“AD 2008-04-11 R1”).
(2) AD 2013-24-07, Amendment 39-17681 (78 FR 72550, December 3, 2013) (“AD 2013-24-07”).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model 707-100 long body, -200, -100B long body, and -100B short body, -300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes.
(2) Model 720 and 720B series airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct potential ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information in Section A, including Subsections A.1, A.2, and Appendix 1, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016; except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD. The initial compliance times for the AWL tasks are within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD.
(1) AWL No. 28-AWL-01, External Wires Over Center Fuel Tank, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016. The initial compliance time for accomplishment of the actions specified by AWL No. 28-AWL-01 is specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-01 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 120 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-01: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) AWL No. 28-AWL-18, AC Fuel Boost Pump Bonding Installation, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016. The initial compliance time for accomplishment of the actions specified by AWL No. 28-AWL-18 is specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-18 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 72 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-18 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(3) AWL No. 28-AWL-19, Fuel Valve Bonding Jumper Installation—Engine Fuel Shutoff, Defuel, Reserve Tank Transfer, Fuel Dump, and Fuel Manifold Valves, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016. The initial compliance time for accomplishment of the actions specified by AWL No. 28-AWL-19 is specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-19 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 72 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-19 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(4) AWL No. 28-AWL-21, Dry Bay Fuel Manifold Assembly—Bonding Jumper Installation, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016. The initial compliance time for accomplishment of the actions specified by AWL No. 28-AWL-21 is specified in paragraph (g)(4)(i) or (g)(4)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-21 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 72 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-21 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(5) AWL No. 28-AWL-23, Reserve Tank Transfer Piping Assembly—Bonding Jumper Installation, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016. The initial compliance time for accomplishment of the actions specified by AWL No. 28-AWL-23 is specified in paragraph (g)(5)(i) or (g)(5)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-23 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 72 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-23 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(1) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-03 identifies wire types BMS 13-48, BMS 13-58, and BMS 13-60, the following wire types are also acceptable: MIL-W-22759/16, MIL-W-22759/32, MIL-W-22759/34, MIL-W-22759/41, MIL-W-22759/86, MIL-W-22759/87, and MIL-W-22759/92; and MIL-C-27500 cables, which are constructed from the MIL Specification wire types identified in this paragraph.
(2) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-03 identifies TFE-2X Standard wall for wire sleeving, the following sleeving materials are also acceptable: Roundit 2000NX and Varglas Type HO, HP, or HM.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
(1) Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2008-04-11 R1 for that airplane.
(2) Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-24-07 for that airplane.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6498; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface in Selinsgrove, PA. A new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedure has been developed at Penn Valley Airport, requiring airspace reconfiguration. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of the airport.
Comments must be received on or before January 4, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2014-0839; Airspace Docket No. 14-AEA-7, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
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.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
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 would amend Class E airspace at Penn Valley Airport, Selinsgrove, PA to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0839; Airspace Docket No. 14-AEA-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface from an 8-mile radius to a 9-mile radius of Penn Valley Airport, Selinsgrove, PA because a new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedure to Runway 35 has been developed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The proposed amendment would remove the segment extending northbound from Selinsgrove VOR/DME, northbound, would be removed because it is no longer required as part of the airspace redesign. Additionally, the amendment would update the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database, and would correct the name of the navigation aid from VORTAC to VOR/DME.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 9-mile radius of Penn Valley Airport and within 5 miles southeast of the Selinsgrove VOR/DME 207° radial, extending from the 9-mile radius to 10 miles southwest of the VOR/DME.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Marshall County Airport, Moundsville, WV, due to the FAA's reevaluation of the airspace. This amendment would result in an increase from a 6.2-mile radius to a 7.3-mile radius of the airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of the airport.
Comments must be received on or before January 4, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2017-0878; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-14, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
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.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
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 would amend Class E airspace at Marshall County Airport, Moundsville, WV, to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0878; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-14.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Marshall County Airport, Moundsville, WV, to within a 7.3-mile radius (increased from a 6.2-mile radius) of the airport. This proposal would also amend the 12-mile segment northeast of the airport extending from the 7.3-mile radius (increased from a 6.2-mile radius) of the airport. This action is necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. This action also would adjust the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.3-mile radius of Marshall County Airport, and within 2 miles each side of a 051° bearing from the airport, extending from the 7.3-mile radius to 12 miles northeast of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Holmes County Airport, Millersburg, OH; and at Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH due to the decommissioning of Tiverton VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) and Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), cancellation of the VOR approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports. Additionally, the geographic coordinates at Richard Downing Airport and Holmes County Airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Comments must be received on or before January 4, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0342; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-6, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5900.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Holmes County Airport, Millersburg, OH and Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH to support IFR operations at these airports.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0342/Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 6.7-mile radius) of the Holmes County Airport, Millersburg, OH. The segment within 2.7 miles either side of the 085° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10.5 miles east of the airport, and within 1.8 miles either side of the 236° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 8 miles southwest of the airport would be removed and updating the geographic coordinates of Holmes County Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action also proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.3-mile radius) of Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH, with a segment within 2.0 miles (reduced from 4- miles) either side of the 037° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.6 miles (reduced from a 10- miles) northeast of the airport, and updating the geographic coordinates of Richard Downing Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Tiverton VOR/DME, cancellation of VOR approaches, and implementation of RNAV procedures at these airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.
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.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 6.5-mile radius of the Holmes County Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Richard Downing Airport and within 2.0 miles either side of the 037° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.6 miles northeast of the airport.
National Indian Gaming Commission.
Proposed rule; correction.
On November 13, 2017, the National Indian Gaming Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) regarding fees. The NPR invited the public to submit written comments during a 45-day comment period beginning on the NPR publication date. This document corrects the preamble to reflect the intended 30-day comment period.
November 20, 2017.
Austin Badger, National Indian Gaming Commission; Telephone: 202-632-7003.
In the proposed rule FR Doc. 2017-24363, published on November 13, 2017, the following correction is made:
On page 52253, in the third column, correct the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Arkansas to address the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2006 and 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before December 20, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0435, at
Nevine Salem, (214) 665-7222,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” mean EPA.
The EPA has revised certain NAAQS that are the subject of this SIP revision proposal action. In 2006, following a periodic review of the NAAQS for PM
Likewise, in 2010, EPA revised the primary national ambient air quality standard for oxides of nitrogen as measured by nitrogen dioxide (NO
Additionally, in June 2010, the EPA revised the primary SO
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit i-SIPs that provide for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of a new or revised SAAQS within 3 years following the promulgation of such new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific requirements that that i-SIPs must include to adequately address such new or revised NAAQS, as applicable.
On March 24, 2017, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted SIP revisions to address all of the revised NAAQS as required by i-SIP requirements. Each state must submit an i-SIP within three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA includes a list of specific elements the i-SIP must meet. In an effort to assist states in complying with this requirement, EPA issued guidance addressing the i-SIP elements for the NAAQS.
EPA is proposing to approve the Arkansas i-SIP submittal except for certain portions
The State's submittal on March 24, 2017 demonstrates how the existing Arkansas SIP meets the infrastructure requirements for 2006 PM
In summary, Arkansas meets the requirement to establish, operate, and maintain an ambient air monitoring network; collect and analyze the monitoring data; and make the data available to EPA upon request. EPA is proposing to find that the current Arkansas SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to 2006 and 2012 PM
These rules clarify the boundaries beyond which regulated entities in Arkansas can expect enforcement action. To meet the CAA requirement for having a program for the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved—including a permit program as required by Parts C and D—generally, the State is required to have SIP-approved PSD, Nonattainment, and Minor New Source Review permitting programs adequate to implement the 2006 and 2012 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any sources or other types of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required of any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or from interfering with measures required of any other state to protect visibility (referring to visibility of Class I areas). The EPA sometimes refers to this requirement under CAA subsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as prong 3 (interference with PSD) and prong 4 (interference with visibility protection). The EPA interprets CAA section
We previously approved the portions of Arkansas' 2006 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the CAA requires SIPs to include adequate provisions to ensure compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. Section 126(a) of the CAA requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. Section 115 of the CAA relates to the international pollution abatement portion of 110(a)((2)(D)(ii).
The i-SIP must prohibit emissions within Arkansas from contributing significantly to the nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states, and from interfering with the maintenance of the NAAQS in other states (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). The SIP must also prohibit emissions within Arkansas both from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration in other states and from interfering with measures required to protect visibility in other states (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)).
ADEQ has determined that there are few sources of lead emissions located in close proximity to Arkansas' borders (
We are also proposing to approve the portion of the SIP pertaining to the prevention of significant deterioration in other states for Pb and NO
Based on information presented in the State's SIP submission, we are proposing to approve the portion of the SIP submittal related to the prevention of significant deterioration in other states, as Arkansas has a fully approved PSD program that addresses all regulated new source review pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHG) which prevent significant deterioration in nearby states.
The i-SIP submission for the referenced NAAQS pollutants describes the SIP regulations governing the various functions of personnel within the ADEQ, including the administrative, technical support, planning, enforcement, and permitting functions of the program.
With respect to necessary assurances, and the requirement to address funding, Arkansas has authority to collect fees for the NSR permit programs, and other inspections, maintenance and renewals required of other air pollution sources also provide necessary funds to help implement the State's air programs. Ark. Code Ann. § 8-1-103(1)(A) grants APC&EC the authority to establish, by regulation, reasonable fees for initial issuance, annual review, and modification of permits. Under Ark. Code Ann. § 8-1-103(3), ADEQ is authorized to collect the fees established by APC&EC and shall deny the issuance of an initial permit, a renewal permit, or a modification permit if and when a facility fails or refuses to pay the fees after reasonable notice. APC&EC Regulation 9, Fee Regulation. Chapter 5, Air Permit Fees, contains the air permit fees applicable to non-part 70 permits, part 70 permits and general permits. More specific information on permitting fees is provided in the TSD.
With respect to authority and personnel, Ark. Code Ann. § 8-1-202(b)(2)(D) states that the Director of ADEQ's duties include the day-to-day administration of all activities that the Department is empowered by law to perform, including, but not limited to, the employment and supervision of such technical, legal, and administrative staff, within approved appropriations, as is necessary to carry out the responsibilities vested with ADEQ. The AWAPCA provides the ADEQ adequate authority, in part “to administer and enforce all laws and regulations relating to pollution of the air.” Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 8-4-311(7). APC&EC Regulation 19.301 gives ADEQ the responsibility of meeting all applicable regulations and requirements contained in the CAA, as amended, if any area of the state is determined to be in violation of the NAAQS. APC&EC Reg. 19.410 gives ADEQ the authority to revoke, suspend, or modify any permit for cause. For further details, please refer to the TSD.
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the State's SIP comply with CAA section 128 that requires: (1) That the majority of members of the state body that approves permits or enforcement orders do not derive any significant portions of their income from entities subject to permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflicts of interest by such body be adequately disclosed. In 1982, the EPA approved the State's SIP submittal to demonstrate compliance of the SIP with Section 128 of the CAA. 47 FR 19136 (May 04, 1982). The submittal cited AWAPCA section 82-1901 as demonstrating compliance with CAA section 128(a)(1) and cited Arkansas Code of Ethics Law Act 570 of 1979, Section 3: Use of Public Office to Obtain Special Privilege Prohibited: Section 4: Use and Disclosure of Information—Acquired by Reason of Office Activities Requiring Disclosure; Section 5: Requirement to File Statement and Section 6: Statements Period Retained Public Access Signature Required. Under APC&EC Reg. 8.202, the Director or the Director's delegate shall issue all permits with nothing in APC&EC Regulation 8 being construed to authorize APC&EC to issue a permit, including the power to reverse or affirm a permitting decision by the Director.
Under Ark. Code Ann. § 21-8-1001, no member of a state board or commission or board member of an entity receiving state funds shall participate in, vote on, influence or attempt to influence an official decision if the member has pecuniary interest in the matter under consideration by the board, commission, or entity. In addition, no member of a state board or commission or board member of an entity receiving state funds shall participate in any discussion or vote on a rule or regulation that exclusively benefits the member. As required by the CAA, the SIP stipulates that any board or body, which approves permits or enforcement orders, must have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any “significant portion” of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders or who appear before the board on issues related to the CAA. The members of the board or body, or the head of an agency with similar powers, are required to adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest. While the ADEQ has no board or commission, the ADEQ submitted a letter dated January 19, 2012, that clarified that the Director of the ADEQ is considered the “the head of an executive agency with similar powers,” and must meet the requirement to adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
The relevant regulatory requirements have been codified in APC&E Regulation 19, Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control, Chapter 7 (pertaining to sampling and testing).
Provisions in APC&EC Chapter 7, Regulation 19.705 provide for the reporting of emissions inventories in a format established by the ADEQ on a schedule set forth in that section. In addition, APC&EC Regulation 19.705 requires the submission of emission statements as required by the CAA. Area, mobile, and non-road data are required to be reported on a three-year cycle.
Enforceable emission limitations and other control measures are covered in the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act and those provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §§ 8-4-310 and 8-4-311. Elements of the program for enforcement are found in the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for sources in these control measures as well as individual SIP permits. Additional details and citations to the relevant regulatory authorities and provisions are discussed in the TSD. We are proposing that the Arkansas SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F).
Ark. Code Ann. § 8-1-202(b)(2)(C) empowers the ADEQ to issue orders under circumstances that reasonably require emergency measures to be taken to protect the environment or the public health and safety. APC&EC Reg. 8.502 requires ADEQ to publish a Notice of Emergency Order in a newspaper covering the affected area, or in a newspaper of statewide circulation. The notice must contain a description of the action, ADEQ's authority for taking the action and other information appropriate to ensure the public is informed about the action.
Ark. Code Ann. § 8-4-202(e)(1) empowers APC&EC to declare an emergency and implement emergency rules, regulations, suspensions, or moratoria on categories or types of permits if APC&EC determines that imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare requires immediate change in the rules or immediate suspension or moratorium on categories or types of permits. APC&EC Regulation 8, Administrative Procedures, Reg. 8.807 authorizes the Commission to waive or reduce the notice requirements in cases involving emergency rulemaking. No emergency rule shall be effective for more than 180 days.
The AWAPCA, Section 82-1935(1), empowers the APC&EC to “formulate and promulgate, amend, repeal, and enforce rules and regulations implementing or effectuating the powers and duties of the Commission [. . .] to control air pollution”. Therefore, Arkansas has the authority to revise its SIP as may be necessary to take into account revisions of primary or secondary NAAQS, or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standards. Furthermore, Arkansas also has the authority under the AWAPCA provisions to revise its SIP in the event the EPA (pursuant to the Act) finds the SIP to be substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS. APC&EC Regulation 19, Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control, Chapter 1, provides a clear delineation of those regulations that are promulgated by APC&EC in satisfaction of certain requirements of the CAA. Ark. Code Ann. § 8-4-311(a)(7) empowers ADEQ to administer and enforce all laws and regulations relating to pollution of the air. Ark. Code Ann. § 8-4-202(d)(4)(A)(ii) authorizes APC&EC to refer to the Code of Federal Regulations for any APC&EC standard or regulation that is identical to a regulation promulgated by the EPA.
The Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission's Regulation 19, Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control, Chapter 1, demonstrates that those regulations that are promulgated by the Commission satisfy the requirements of this provision of the CAA.
Under APC&EC Regulation 19, Chapter 9, Arkansas has incorporated by reference the requirements in 40 CFR part 52 for PSD in their entirety, with the exception of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(a), 52.21(b)(49), 52.21(b)(50), 52.21(b)(55-58), 52.21(i) and 52.21(cc). These provisions were approved by EPA as part of the federally-approved SIP. These incorporated provisions also provide for protection of visibility in Federal Class I areas. All new major sources and major modifications are subject to a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD permitting program, including GHG PSD permitting that was approved on April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19596) and PM
The visibility sub-element of Element J is not being addressed because EPA stated in a September 13, 2013 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP Elements under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)” that we believe that there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations pursuant to Element J after the promulgation of new or revised NAAQS.
(1)
The AWAPCA, as codified under Ark Code Ann. A.C.A. § 8-1-203 provides that the APC&EC “shall meet regularly in publicly noticed open meetings to discuss and rule upon matters of environmental concern” prior to the adoption of any rule or regulation implementing the substantive statutes charged to the ADEQ for administration. In addition, Ark. Code Ann. section 8-4-311(a)(2) provides that the ADEQ or its successor shall have the power and duty “to advise, consult, and cooperate with other agencies of the state, political subdivisions, industries, other states, the federal government, and with affected groups in the furtherance of the purposes of this chapter.” Further, Regulation 19.904(D) provides that ADEQ shall make determinations that a source may affect air quality or visibility in a mandatory Class I federal area based on screening criteria agreed upon by the Department and the Federal Land Manager.
(2)
In addition, the State implements an Ozone Action Day (OAD) program
(3)
ADEQ has a complete EPA-approved PSD permitting program in place covering the required elements for all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHG). EPA had previously published a finding of failure to submit a PSD SIP for PM
The fee requirements of the APC&EC's Regulation 26, Regulations of the Arkansas Operating Air Permit Program, Chapter 11, were approved by EPA as meeting the CAA requirements and were incorporated into Arkansas's SIP. Arkansas's title V operating permit program in Chapter 11, was approved October 9, 2001. APC&EC's Chapter 11 titled “Permit Fees,” Reg. 26.1101, “Fee Requirement,” requires that in accordance with 40 CFR 70.9, as promulgated July 21, 1992, and last modified June 3, 2010 (75 FR 31607), that the owners or operators of part 70 sources shall pay initial and annual fees that are sufficient to cover the permit program costs. The Department shall ensure that any fee required by these regulations will be used solely for permit program costs. In addition, APC&EC's Reg. 26.1102, titled “Fee schedule,” requires that the fee schedule for part 70 permits is contained in Regulation No. 9. The APC&EC Regulation 9, Fee Regulation, Chapter 5, Air Permit Fees, contains the air permit fees applicable to non-part 70 permits, part 70 permits and general permits. Revisions to air permitting fees requirements in Chapter 5 were approved by EPA on April 30, 2015 (80 FR 24216). Reg. 9.501, “Applicability,” requires that air permit fees contained in this section are applicable to (1) non-part 70 permits, (2) part 70 permits, and (3) general permits.
ADEQ participates in the Central State Air Resources Agencies, which is an organization of states, tribes, federal agencies and other interested parties concerned with air quality. The interactions and public participation on rule and plan development are consistent with the requirements of § 110(a)(2)(M).
EPA is proposing to approve the majority of the March 24, 2017 Arkansas i-SIP submittal, which address the requirements of the CAA sections 110(a) (1) and (2) as applicable to 2006 PM
For the 2006 PM
For the 2008 Lead NAAQS, we are proposing to approve all the infrastructure elements in CAA 110(a)(2)(A-M) for the Arkansas SIP.
For the 2010 NO
For the 2012 PM
For the 2008 Ozone, we are proposing to approve CAA 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3: Interstate transport—prevention of significant deterioration), CAA 110(a)(2)(D(ii), E, F, H, I, J, K, L, and M).
Table 1 (below) outlines the specific actions EPA is proposing to take in this action for the Arkansas March 24, 2017 i-SIP submittal.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in the federally-approved Arkansas SIP, EPA believes that Arkansas has the infrastructure in place to address all applicable required elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) (except as noted in Table 1 above) to ensure that the 2006 PM
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR3821, 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 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Interstate transport of pollution, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this proposed rule would revise the commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACLs) and annual catch targets (ACTs), and modify the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone. The purpose of this proposed rule and the framework action is to adjust the rebuilding time period, to revise the sector ACLs and ACTs, and to incorporate updated stock status information to end overfishing and rebuild the greater amberjack stock in the Gulf.
Written comments must be received on or before December 5, 2017.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0116” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Kelli O'Donnell, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes greater amberjack, is managed under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Steven Act) through regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and to achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation.
The greater amberjack resource in the Gulf was declared overfished by NMFS on February 9, 2001. Secretarial Amendment 2 established a greater amberjack rebuilding plan which started in 2003 and ended in 2012 (68 FR 39898; July 3, 2003). In 2006, a Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) benchmark stock assessment (SEDAR 9) was completed for greater amberjack and was subsequently updated in 2010 (SEDAR 9 Update). In response to results from SEDAR 9 that showed the stock continued to be overfished and undergoing overfishing, the rebuilding plan was revised in Amendment 30A to the FMP (73 FR 38139; July 3, 2008). Results from the SEDAR 9 Update showed the stock continued to be overfished and undergoing overfishing, thereby necessitating further adjustment of the greater amberjack rebuilding plan, implemented in Amendment 35 to the FMP (77 FR 67574; December 13, 2012). However, after the time period for rebuilding the stock that was put in effect through the final rule for Secretarial Amendment 2 ended in 2012, NMFS determined in a 2014 stock assessment (SEDAR 33) that the stock was not rebuilt, and remained overfished and was undergoing overfishing. In response to the results of SEDAR 33, the rebuilding plan was revised and the catch levels were reduced in a 2015 framework action (80 FR 75432; December 2, 2015). The current rebuilding time period, established by the 2015 framework action, ends in 2019.
A 2016 update to SEDAR 33 (SEDAR 33 Update) indicated the Gulf greater amberjack stock remained overfished and was undergoing overfishing, and would not rebuild by 2019, as previously estimated. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed this assessment at their March 2017 meeting and provided the Council new overfishing limits (OFL) and acceptable biological catches (ABC) for a period of 3 years beginning in 2018. The ABCs recommended by the Council's SSC are: 1,182,000 lb (536,146 kg) for 2018; 1,489,000 lb (675,399 kg) for 2019; and 1,794,000 lb (813,744 kg) for 2020. All weights described in this proposed rule are in pounds round weight. Constraining catch to the ABC (equivalent to 75 percent of the maximum fishing mortality threshold) is expected to end overfishing and rebuild the stock by 2027.
In May 2017, pursuant to paragraph (7) of section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)), NMFS notified the Council of the 2016 SEDAR 33 Update results that indicated that the greater amberjack stock continued to be overfished and undergoing overfishing. Following that notification, the Council was required under section 304(e)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prepare regulations within 2 years to end overfishing immediately and rebuild the greater amberjack stock.
The Council decided to set the stock ACL equal to the SSC's ABC recommendation for 2018 through 2020, keeping the stock ACL for 2020 in effect for subsequent years unless changed. The Council did not consider any change to the allocation of the stock
This proposed rule would revise the commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs (which are expressed as quotas in the regulatory text), and would revise the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack in the Gulf.
The current commercial ACL is 464,400 lb (210,648 kg) and the commercial ACT is 394,740 lb (179,051 kg). The current recreational ACL is 1,255,600 lb (569,530 kg) and the recreational ACT is 1,092,372 lb (495,492 kg).
This proposed rule would revise the commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs for Gulf greater amberjack based on the results of the SEDAR 33 Update and the ABC recommendations from the Council's SSC. This proposed rule would set the commercial ACL at 319,140 lb (144,759 kg) for 2018, 402,030 lb (182,357 kg) for 2019, and 484,380 lb (219,711 kg) for 2020 and subsequent years. The commercial ACT would be set at 277,651 lb (125,940 kg) for 2018, 349,766 lb (158,651 kg) for 2019, and 421,411 lb (191,148 kg) for 2020 and subsequent years. The recreational ACL would be set at 862,860 lb (391,386 kg) for 2018, 1,086,970 lb (493,041 kg) for 2019, and 1,309,620 lb (594,033 kg) for 2020 and subsequent years. The recreational ACT would be set at 716,173 lb (354,850 kg) for 2018, 902,185 lb (409,223 kg) for 2019, and 1,086,985 lb (493,047 kg) for 2020 and subsequent years.
This proposed rule would revise the greater amberjack recreational fixed closed season from June 1 through July 31, which was established in the final rule for Amendment 35 to the FMP (77 FR 67574; November 13, 2012). This closed season was implemented to restrict harvest during times of peak fishing effort in order to prevent a recreational in-season quota closure, and thus effectively provide a longer fishing season for the recreational sector. The June 1 through July 31 greater amberjack recreational fixed closed season also was intended to allow for the harvest of one highly targeted species (red snapper) when the fishing season for the other species (greater amberjack) was closed. However, in-season closures of the greater amberjack have continued to occur, and the reduction of the recreational red snapper season, which opens on June 1 each year, has resulted in closures for both of these species simultaneously. This proposed rule would change the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack to January 1 through June 30. The Council determined that extending the length of the recreational fixed closed season to the six-month period of January 1 through June 30 would protect greater amberjack during peak spawning in the majority of the Gulf (March through April), thereby contributing to rebuilding the greater amberjack stock. The Council also determined that this proposed 6-month fixed closed season would reduce the likelihood that the recreational sector would exceed its ACL. The Council intended this new 6-month fixed closed season to be a temporary measure to give the Council time to develop and complete a subsequent framework action that would allow a spring and fall recreational fishing season. At the October 2017 meeting, the Council approved a subsequent framework action that would modify the 6-month fixed closed season to create two separate fishing seasons: a spring season open from May 1 through May 31, and a fall season open from August 1 through October 31.
In addition to the measures proposed in this rule, the framework action would revise the greater amberjack ABC and OFL based upon the results of the SEDAR 33 Update and the Council's SSC recommendations. The current greater amberjack ABC is 1,720,000 lb (780,179 kg), and the current OFL is 3,420,000 lb (1,551,286 kg), which were established in the final rule implementing the 2015 framework action (80 FR 75432; December 2, 2015). This framework action would revise the ABC and OFL for 3 years, beginning in 2018. The ABC, which is equal to the stock ACL, would be set at 1,182,000 lb (536,146 kg) for 2018, 1,489,000 lb (675,399 kg) for 2019, and 1,794,000 lb (813,744 kg) for 2020 and subsequent years. The OFL would be set at 1,500,000 lb (680,388 kg) for 2018; 1,836,000 lb (832,795 kg) for 2019; and 2,167,000 lb (982,934 kg) for 2020 and subsequent years.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, 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 factual basis for this determination follows.
A description of the proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for this proposed rule are contained in the preamble of this rule at the beginning of the
This proposed rule, if implemented, would be expected to directly affect all
As of October 2, 2017, there were 841 vessels with valid or renewable Federal Gulf reef fish commercial vessel permits. From 2010 through 2015, an average of 185 federally permitted commercial reef fish vessels per year landed greater amberjack in the Gulf (Federal and state waters). These vessels, combined, averaged 522 trips per year in the Gulf on which greater amberjack were landed, and 2,935 other trips in the Gulf on which no greater amberjack were landed or trips that occurred in the South Atlantic. The average annual total dockside revenue (2015 dollars) was approximately $0.54 million from greater amberjack, approximately $4.44 million from other species co-harvested with greater amberjack (on the same trips), and approximately $26.75 million from other trips by these vessels in the Gulf on which no greater amberjack were harvested or on trips that occurred in the South Atlantic. Total average annual revenue from all species harvested by vessels harvesting greater amberjack in the Gulf was approximately $31.74 million, or approximately $171,971 per vessel. These vessels generated approximately 1.7 percent of their total fishing revenues from greater amberjack. Based on the foregoing revenue information, all commercial vessels affected by the proposed rule are assumed to be small entities.
Because all entities expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are assumed to be small entities, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities; however, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.
Modifying the greater amberjack ACLs and ACTs starting in 2018 is projected to rebuild the stock by 2027. The revisions to the sector ACLs and ACTs would result in total ex-vessel revenue reductions of approximately $161,000 in 2018 and $62,000 in 2019. Beginning in 2020, total ex-vessel revenues would increase annually by approximately $36,000. Over the entire rebuilding period (2018-2027), total ex-vessel revenues would increase by approximately $70,000 for all vessels combined, or $378 per vessel. It is possible that some vessels may experience profit reductions, particularly in the first two years of the rebuilding period, but on average, the profit reductions would be relatively small because ex-vessel revenues from greater amberjack account for only 1.7 percent of total ex-vessel revenues for an average vessel. More economic benefits, such as higher ex-vessel revenues, may be expected after the stock is rebuilt in 2027 when less stringent measures, such as higher ACLs/ACTs, could be established.
The information provided above supports a determination that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this proposed rule, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant economic impact on any small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Greater amberjack, Gulf, Recreational, Reef fish.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(c)
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) Greater amberjack—(A) For fishing year 2018—277,651 lb (125,940.38 kg), round weight.
(B) For fishing year 2019—349,766 lb (158,651 kg), round weight.
(C) For fishing year 2020 and subsequent years—421,411 lb (191,149 kg), round weight.
(2) * * *
(ii)
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) The commercial ACL for greater amberjack, in round weight, is 319,140 lb (144,759 kg), for 2018, 402,030 lb (182,358 kg), for 2019, and 484,380 lb (219,711 kg), for 2020 and subsequent fishing years.
(2) * * *
(iii) The recreational ACL for greater amberjack, in round weight, is 862,860 lb (391,387 kg), for 2018, 1,086,970 lb (493,041 kg), for 2019, and 1,309,620 lb
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 December 20, 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.
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 December 20, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Under the Honeybee Act (7 U.S.C. 281-286), the Secretary is authorized to prohibit or restrict the importation of honeybees and honeybee semen to prevent the introduction into the United States of diseases and parasites harmful to honeybees and of undesirable species and subspecies of honeybees. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), is responsible for implementing the intent of these Acts, and does so through the enforcement of its pollinator and bee regulations.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to collect information from focus groups on consumer food safety knowledge, attitudes, and practices and to elicit consumer responses to FSIS food safety messages and determine their impact on consumer food safety knowledge and behavior.
Submit comments on or before January 19, 2018.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.
FSIS's Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Education (USDA, FSIS, OPACE) ensures that all segments of the farm-to-table chain receive valuable food safety information. The consumer education programs developed by OPACE inform the public how to safely handle, prepare, and store meat, poultry, and processed egg products so
OPACE strives to continuously increase consumer awareness of recommended food safety practices and to improve food-handling behaviors at home. OPACE shares its messages through The
By testing planned and tailoring existing consumer messaging, FSIS can better ensure that it is effectively communicating with the public to improve consumer food safety practices. Findings from the proposed focus group research will provide insight into how to effectively inform consumers about recommended safe food handling practices. The results of this research will be used to enhance messaging to improve consumers' food safety behaviors and help prevent foodborne illness.
To collect information on consumer food safety knowledge, attitudes, and practices, and to elicit consumer responses to FSIS food safety messages and determine their impact on consumer food safety knowledge and behavior, FSIS is requesting approval for a new information collection to conduct consumer focus groups. Focus groups are typically used for developing and testing health communication messages. Qualitative research is particularly useful in studies such as this one, in which the research is exploratory in nature. These findings help provide insight and direction into the topics of interest and provide an understanding of the target audience's attitudes and behaviors.
FSIS has contracted with RTI International to conduct two series of focus groups with adults. Each series will include 16 focus groups. The first series will be conducted in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, and the second series will be conducted in FY 2020.
In FY 2018, two sets of focus groups will be conducted, with eight groups per set. The first set of focus groups (Set 1) in FY 2018 will be conducted with parents who have children younger than 18 years old. In Set 1, two focus groups will be conducted in each of four different locations. In each location, one group will be conducted with English-speaking adults and one group with Spanish-speaking adults. The groups will be segmented by education level to increase the homogeneity of the groups.
The second set of eight focus groups (Set 2) in FY 2018 will be conducted with English-speaking adults who have intentionally prepared meat or poultry dishes at home to be served undercooked or raw, such as chicken liver pate, hamburgers cooked rare or medium rare, kibbeh, raw meat sandwiches, or beef tartare. The groups will be segmented by type of food and conducted in locations where consumption of these foods is common based on ethnic, cultural, or other traditions.
A second series of focus groups will be conducted in FY 2020 with a total of 16 focus groups. The topics for these groups have yet to be determined and will ultimately inform the development of communication campaigns on foodborne illness prevention.
For each series of focus groups, a local market research company in each location will recruit potential participants from their databases and other sources. They will also provide the facilities for hosting the focus group discussions. Using convenience sampling, a non-probability sampling technique where subjects are selected because of their convenient accessibility instead of random selection, the market research companies will recruit potential participants who meet the eligibility criteria as defined by the screening questionnaires.
An experienced moderator will conduct the focus group discussions and use a facilitator guide, which will serve as an outline and provide structure for the focus group discussions. Each focus group discussion will be professionally recorded (audio and video) by the local market research companies. The audio-recordings will be professionally transcribed. The moderators will review the video-recordings and transcripts of the focus group discussions and prepare a detailed summary of each discussion. The moderators will then analyze the summaries to identify common themes and any exceptions to these themes. The contractor will summarize these findings in a final report to FSIS. No statistical analyses will be conducted.
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence SW., Room 6077, South Building, Washington, DC 20250, (202)690-6510.
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.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA); the RESP application process and deadlines.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is announcing funding availability and is soliciting letters of intent for loan applications under the Rural Energy Savings Program (RESP), announcing the application process for those loans and deadlines for applications from eligible entities. These loans are made available under the authority of Section 6407 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, as amended, (Section 6407) and the Title III, Section 769 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017. This notice describes the eligibility requirements, the application process and deadlines, the criteria that will be used by RUS to assess Applicants' creditworthiness, and how to obtain application materials.
The application process consists of two steps. To be considered for this funding, Applicants must submit their documentation no later than the mandatory dates set forth herein.
Copies of this NOFA and other information on the Rural Energy Savings Program may be obtained by:
(1) Contacting Robert Coates at (202) 260-5415 to request a copy of this Notice.
(2) Sending an electronic mail (email) to
(3) The Letter of intent must be submitted by the Applicant in an electronic PDF (PDF) format not to exceed 10 Megabytes (10 MB) by electronic mail (email) to
(4) The completed loan application package must be submitted following the instructions that will be outlined in the RUS Invitation to proceed to the RESP Applicant. The loan application package must be marked with the subject line “Attention: Christopher McLean, Assistant Administrator for the Electric Program; RESP Loan Application.”
Robert Coates, Rural Utilities Service—Electric Program, Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1568, Room 0217-S, Washington, DC 20250-1560; Telephone: (202) 260-5415; Email
This NOFA is being issued without advance rulemaking or public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, as amended (5 U.S.C. 553) (APA), has several exemptions to rulemaking requirements. Among them is an exception for a matter relating to “loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” Furthermore, the 30 day effective date policy is excepted for “good cause.” USDA has determined, consistent with the APA that making these funds available under this NOFA for the RESP is in the public interest since the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31) appropriated a budget authority of $8,000,000 until September 30, 2018 and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, as amended, authorized the program until that very same date. RUS is using its experience operating under the 2016 Notice of Solicitation for Applications and this NOFA in its effort to undertake a rulemaking process to more permanently codify requirements.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), OMB approved this information collection under OMB Control Number 0572-0151. The current expiration date for the information collection is December 31, 2019.
For the purpose of RESP, the following terms must have the following meanings:
With regard to the rules of grammatical construction, unless the context otherwise indicates, “includes” and “including” are not limiting, and “or” is not exclusive.
The USDA through the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) provides RESP loans to Eligible entities that agree to, in turn, make loans to Qualified consumers for the purpose of implementing Energy efficiency measures. These loans are made available under the authority of Section 6407. Eligible Energy efficiency measures funded under this NOFA must be for or at a property or properties served by a RESP borrower, using commercially available technologies that would allow Qualified consumers to decrease their energy use or costs through cost-effective measures including structural improvements to the structure. Loans made by RESP borrowers under this program may be repaid through charges added to the Qualified consumer's bill for the property or properties for, or at which, energy efficiencies are or will be implemented. The purpose of the program is to help rural families and small businesses achieve cost savings by providing loans to Qualified consumers to implement durable cost-effective Energy efficiency measures.
a. Any public power district, public utility district, or similar entity, or any electric cooperative described in section 501(c)(12) or 1381(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that borrowed and repaid, prepaid, or is paying an electric loan made or guaranteed by the Rural Utilities Service (or any predecessor agency);
b. Any entity primarily owned or controlled by 1 or more entities described in section C.1.a. of this NOFA; and
c. Any other entity that is an eligible borrower of the Rural Utilities Service, as determined under 7 CFR 1710.101.
a. To be eligible for a RESP loan, a newly created Eligible entity or an entity primarily owned or controlled by one (1) or more entities described in section C.1.a. of this NOFA must have a minimum equity position in the EE Program proposed to be funded with RESP at the time of the loan closing and the Eligible entity will be required to continue to maintain the minimum equity position for the period of time determined by the Administrator and as set forth in the loan documents. The required equity position and terms will be determined by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis based upon review of the risk profile of the Eligible entity and other security arrangements.
b. If the Administrator determines that the RESP Applicant under this section does not have acceptable equity, in the Energy Efficiency Program at the time of application, the Administrator may consider the following to meet such shortfall regarding equity:
i. The infusion of additional capital into the Energy efficiency program by an Investor to meet any shortfall. RUS may require that the additional capital be deposited into a RESP Applicant's special account subject to a deposit account control agreement with RUS prior to loan closing.
ii. An unconditional, irrevocable letter of credit satisfactory to the Administrator in the amount of the shortfall. RUS must be an unconditional payee under the letter of credit and the letter of credit must be in place prior to loan closing and remain in place until the loan is repaid.
iii. General obligation bonds issued by tribal, state or local governments in the amount of the shortfall. If the equity requirement is satisfied with general obligation bonds, any lien securing the bonds must be subordinate to the lien of the government securing the RESP loan.
iv. Any other equity requirements determined necessary by the Administrator to meet the shortfall.
Complete applications for loans to Eligible entities under this NOFA will be processed on a first-come-first-serve basis (queue) until funds appropriated to carry out RESP are expended on or before September 30, 2018. RUS will give priority to the Eligible entities in the queue pursuant to the NOFA issued on June 21, 2016 and that have not been invited to proceed yet. The Administrator may use the queued entities, provided they still meet the applicable requirements, pursuant to this NOFA should funding become available in the future. To be considered for this funding, Applicants must submit their documentation no later than the mandatory dates set forth in this NOFA. The application process consists of two steps.
1.
By submitting the Letter of intent, the Applicant certifies to RUS that it has the intent of submitting a complete RESP loan application on or before the date set forth as the application deadline in the event that RUS provides an Invitation to proceed. RUS will not consider Letters of intent where the project description exceeds five (5) pages. An Invitation to proceed with the loan application sent by the RUS is not to be deemed as an offer by the Agency. The Letter of intent must contain the following:
a. Applicant's Profile and Point of Contact—
i. Name and legal status of the Eligible entity and its address and principal place of business.
ii. The Eligible entity's tax identification number, DUNS and Bradstreet (D&B) number.
iii. Specify if the Eligible entity is a current or a former RUS borrower.
iv. Identify the service territory.
v. Identify the net assets value and specify if the Eligible entity has been placed in receivership liquidation, or under a workout agreement or declared bankruptcy or has had a decree or order issued for relief in any bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar action over the last 10 years. The Applicant must submit a copy of its balance sheet and income statements for the last 3 years. If applicable, the Applicant must provide the balance sheet and income statements for the last 3 years of the entity or entities providing equity or security for the RESP loan together with an explanation of the legal relationship among the legal entities.
vi. Identify a point of contact and provide contact information.
b. The description of the project must not exceed five (5) pages (size 8.5 × 11) and must include the following:
i. A description of the service to be provided to Qualified consumers.
ii. Identity of the staff or contractors that will be implementing the EE Program and their credentials.
iii. Implementation plan that briefly addresses:
A. The marketing strategy.
B. How the Applicant will operate the relending process.
C. A schedule showing sources and uses of funds to implement the EE Program.
D. A brief description of the processes, procedures, and capabilities to quantify and verify the reduction in energy consumption or decrease in the energy costs of the Qualified consumers.
iv. A list of eligible Energy efficiency measures that will be implemented. An Applicant with an existing EE Program in place by April 8, 2014, may describe the Energy efficiency measures, its implementation plan, and its measurement and verification system for the existing program in its Letter of intent to expedite the application process.
c. The Applicant must provide evidence of its key performance indicators for the 5 complete years prior to the submission of the loan application if the total loan amount exceeds 5 million dollars.
2.
Instructions on how to submit the loan application package will be included in the RUS Invitation to proceed to the RESP Applicant. An initial conference call will be scheduled within 10 days from the date of the written invitation to proceed with the RESP loan application and a General Field Representative (GFR) will be assigned to assist the RESP Applicant during this part of the application process.
a. Loan Application Package—The RESP Applicant's application package must include the following documents:
i. Cover Letter. A signed cover letter from the RESP Applicant's General Manager or highest ranking officer requesting a RESP loan under this NOFA.
ii. Board Resolution. A signed copy of the board resolution or applicable authorizing document approving and establishing the EE Program.
iii. Environmental Compliance Agreement. A copy of the duly executed Multi-tier Action Environmental Compliance Agreement (Multi-tier Agreement). A template of a Multi-tier Agreement can be found in Exhibit H of RD Instruction 1970-A, Environmental Policies and Procedures (
iv. Financial Forecast. A financial forecast approved by the applicable governing body of the RESP Applicant in support of its loan application. RUS encourages RESP Applicants to follow the format set forth in RUS Form 325, which may be obtained from a GFR. The financial forecast must cover a period of at least 10 years and must demonstrate that the RESP Applicant's operation is economically viable and that the proposed loan is financially feasible.
A. Current and projected cash flows.
B. A pro forma balance sheet, statement of operations, and general funds summary projected for each year during the forecast period. The requested RESP loan must be included in the financial forecast.
C. The financial goals established for margins, debt service coverage, equity, and levels of general funds to be invested in the EE Program. The financial forecast must use the accrual method of accounting for analyzing costs and revenues and, as applicable, compare the economic results of the various alternatives on a present value basis.
D. A full explanation of the assumptions, supporting data, and analysis used in the forecast, including the methodology used to project revenues, operating expenses, power costs, and any other factors having a material effect on the balance sheet and the financial ratios such as equity and debt service coverage. RUS may require additional data and analysis on a case-by-case basis to assess the probable future competitiveness of the RESP Applicant.
E. Current and projected non-operating income and expense.
F. An itemized budget and schedule for the activities to be implemented with the RESP funds and a discussion on how the loan loss reserve will be set up, the expected delinquency and default rates. The RESP applicant is expected to forecast the amount of loans to be made to Qualified consumers over a 10 year timeframe. If the RESP Applicant determines to charge interest, the RESP Applicant must describe how it is going to use the funds generated from the interest to be received from the loans to the Qualified consumers.
G. A sensitivity analysis may be required by RUS on a case-by-case basis.
v. EE Program Implementation Work Plan (IWP). The RESP Applicant must produce, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, an IWP, duly approved by the applicable governing body of the Eligible entity. The IWP must address all the following core elements:
A. Marketing. In this section the RESP Applicant will identify the qualified customers by market segment that will benefit from the funding available under this NOFA and explains the marketing and outreach efforts to be executed in implementing the relending program. In the identification of the marketing effort to the qualified customers, the RESP Applicant should provide racial and ethnic demographics for the service area or individuals.
B. Operations. In this section the RESP Applicant will describe its Energy efficiency program and how it will operate the relending process. The RESP Applicant must also identify the staff that will be implementing the program, including the tasks that each one will be carrying out, and whether or not it will be outsourcing some or all of the execution of the program.
The RESP Applicant must describe its expertise and the credentials of any third party implementing outsourced tasks to effectively implement the Energy efficiency measures at the scale contemplated by the EE Program for which RESP funding is requested. The statement of qualifications must show the party's experience carrying out the financial and technical expertise components of an EE program at the desired scale. The RESP Applicant will be held accountable to RUS for actions or omissions departing from the required standards by those partners or contractors, arising from or in connection with an EE Program funded under this NOFA.
In this section the RESP Applicant will identify the anticipated amount of special advance for start-up costs and purposes over the expected schedule to draw down the funds attributable to such purposes. In addition, the RESP Applicant will describe the expected schedule to implement the EE Program with an itemized allocation of expected resources including anticipated costs assigned to each task.
The RESP Applicant must describe the processes and procedures that will be put in place to avoid a Conflict of interest in the implementation of the energy efficiency loan program for Qualified consumers.
C. Financials. The RESP Applicant must address the items identified in the Financial Forecast section of this NOFA, Section D.2.a.iv.
D. Measurement and Verification. The RESP Applicant must describe the processes, procedures, and capabilities to quantify and verify the reduction in energy consumption or decrease in energy costs of the Qualified consumers. An RESP Applicant may provide a measurement and verification plan approved by a state or local regulatory body or sponsored by a governmental entity. A measurement and verification plan developed and certified by an industry recognized professional or entity will also be acceptable. Other measurement and verification plans may be acceptable if the Eligible entity can support, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that the protocols and methodology used to verify the Energy efficiency measures are cost-effective and follow generally accepted industry principles and standards. An RESP Applicant with an existing EE Program as of April 8, 2014, may submit the measurement and verification plan previously established to fulfill this requirement.
vi. Articles of incorporation and bylaws or other applicable governing and organizational documents. The RESP Applicant must provide the Applicant's articles of incorporation or other applicable organizational documents currently in effect, as filed with the appropriate state office, setting forth the RESP applicant's corporate purpose; and the bylaws or other applicable governing documents currently in effect, as adopted by the RESP Applicant's applicable governing body. RESP Applicants that are active RUS borrowers may comply with this requirement by notifying in writing to RUS that there are no material changes to the documents already on file with RUS.
vii. Statement of Compliance with other federal statutes. The RESP Applicant must provide statement of compliance with other federal statutes, including but not limited to the following:
A. Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs. 7 CFR part 15, subpart A, Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture—Effectuation on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, RUS Bulletin 1790-1, “Nondiscrimination Among Beneficiaries of RUS Program.” Eligible entities must complete and submit RUS Form 266, Assurance Agreement.
• Signing Form 266 (“Assurance Agreement”) Each prospective recipient must sign Form 266, Assurance Agreement, which assures USDA that the recipient is in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 7 CFR part 15 and other Agency regulations. That no person will be discriminated against based on race, color or national origin, in regard to any program or activity for which the recipient receives Federal financial assistance. That
• Collect and maintain data provided by ultimate beneficiaries on race, sex, and national origin. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB
• The applicant and the ultimate recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Executive Order 12250, Executive Order 13166 Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.
• Civil rights compliance reviews should be conducted by the Agency at pre award and post award. The results of the review should be documented on Form 9, Compliance Review, and appropriate documentation attached to substantiate findings of compliance or noncompliance. The original Form 9 should be maintained in the case file with copies forwarded to the Rural Development Program Compliance Branch. If the recipient is not in compliance, copies must be immediately forwarded to the Director, Civil Rights Staff, with a recommendation for action to be taken.
• RD Instruction 2006-P requires that a Civil Rights Impact Analysis be conducted prior to approving or implementing a wide range of Agency activities. The Agency will prepare Form RD 2006-38, Civil Rights Impact Analysis, on the recipient.
• Signing Form 400-1 Equal Opportunity Agreement in accordance with Executive Order 11246. The requirement of the Equal Opportunity Clause within a construction contract where federal financial assistance exceeds $10,000.
B. Standard Form 100—Equal Employment Opportunity Employer Report EEO-1. This form, required by the Department of Labor, sets forth employment data for Eligible entities with 100 or more employees. A copy of this form, as submitted to the Department of Labor, is to be included in the application for an insured loan if the Eligible entity has more than 100 employees.
C. Form AD-1049—Certificate Regarding Drug Free Workplace Requirements. This form is required as prescribed in 2 CFR parts 182 and 421, Requirements for Drug Free Workplace (Financial Assistance). Information on all of your organization's known workplaces by including the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the award takes place. Workplace identification is required under the drug-free workplace requirements in Subpart B of 2 CFR part 421, which adopts the Government-wide implementation (2 CFR part182) of the Drug-Free Workplace Act.
D. Form AD-1047—Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters. This form is required in accordance with 2 CFR part 417 (Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension) supplemented by 2 CFR part 180, if it applies. See the section heading is “What information must I provide before entering into a covered transaction with the Federal Government? ” located at 2 CFR 180.335.
E. Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” For information on limited English proficiency and agency-specific guidance, go to
F. Lobbying for Grants, Loans, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements. The information on lobbying is required pursuant to 2 CFR part 418. The RESP Applicant should consult RUS before submitting this information.
G. Report on Federal debt delinquency. This report indicates whether or not the RESP Applicant is delinquent on any Federal debt.
H. Certify Accounting, Auditing, and Reporting Requirements. The RESP Applicant must certify to RUS that it is aware of and will abide by the accounting, auditing, and reporting requirements as described within the Federal Award Administration Information section of this NOFA.
I. Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS). The Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS Unique entity identifier and System for Award Management (SAM). Applicants must supply a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number with their Letters of Intent and RESP Applicants with their loan application. Please see
1. General—Loans made to RESP Applicants for eligible purposes under this program will be made only when the Administrator, in his judgment, finds that there is reasonably adequate security and the loan will be repaid within the time agreed.
The Administrator, on case-by-case basis, may set financial coverage ratios based on the risk profile of the RESP Applicant and specific loan terms. Those financial ratios will be included in the RESP borrower's loan documents with RUS. Existing RUS borrowers will be subject to their current debt service coverage ratios in their current loan documents, unless notified otherwise. A RESP Applicant must, after submitting a loan application, promptly notify RUS of any changes in its circumstances that materially affect the information contained in the loan application.
2. Letter of Intent Review—RUS will consider complete Letters of intent as they are received. Upon review of the Letters of Intent, RUS will issue a notification to the Applicant indicating the result of the initial screening. Letters of intent will be reviewed by RUS for the following:
a. Eligibility to participate in RESP in accordance with section C. of this NOFA.
b. Eligibility and feasibility of the project. Compliance with the purpose of Section 6407 to help rural families and small businesses achieve cost savings by providing loans to Qualified consumers to implement durable cost-effective Energy efficiency measures.
c. The financial status of the Applicant to determine the Applicant's likelihood to complete the full application.
3. Loan Application Review
a. Loan Feasibility. Based on the complete application, RUS must have reasonable assurance that the loan, together with all other outstanding loans and other obligations of the RESP Applicant, will be repaid in full as scheduled, in accordance with the loan documents. In making a finding of loan feasibility, RUS will consider, among others: (i) That expected amount of loans and loan amounts are based on reasonable assumptions and adequate supporting data and analysis; (ii) the interest rate, application fees, servicing fees and any other fees expected to be charged to the Qualified consumer per customer class; (iii) the projected revenues, expenses, and any other reliable financial information that could enable RUS to assess its ability to repay the loan within a term not to exceed 20 years; (iv) the ability of the RESP Applicant to meet the required coverage ratios; (v) such risk factors that may substantially impair the RESP Applicant's ability to operate a sustainable business; (vi) supplemental sources of funding to carry out the EE Program; (vii) management's experience implementing EE Programs at the expected scale; and (viii) the financial and management controls in place.
b. Loan Security. Loans will ordinarily be secured by a first and prior lien on substantially all the RESP borrower's property, and in any event will be secured by the best security position practicable in a manner which will adequately protect the interest of the Government during the repayment period of the loan. Collateral that is used to secure a loan must ordinarily be free from liens or security interests other than those permitted by RUS or existing security documents. RUS may in certain circumstances agree to share its first lien position with another lender provided the RESP loan is adequately secured and the security arrangements are acceptable to RUS. In such circumstances, RUS will consider entering into joint security arrangements with other lenders on a pari passu basis.
c. Loan Term. Amortization schedule must be based on a loan term that does not exceed 20 years from the date on which the loan is closed.
d. EE Program Compliance. Proceeds from a RESP loan may only be used for loans to Qualified consumers for the purpose of implementing Energy efficiency measures that decrease energy (not just electricity) usage or costs of the Qualified consumer by an amount that ensures, to the maximum extent practicable, that a loan term of not more than 10 years will not pose an undue financial burden on the Qualified consumer.
Proceeds from the interest charged to the Qualified consumers may be used to establish a loan loss reserve, and to offset personnel and program costs necessary to carry out the program. Nonetheless, under no circumstances will the RESP borrower be able to charge more than 3 percent interest rate to its customers. Loans made by the RESP borrower to Qualified consumers may not exceed 10 years.
Qualified consumers must ordinarily repay their loans to the RESP borrower through charges added by the RESP borrower to the electric bill associated with the property where the Energy efficiency measures are or will be implemented. The repayment mechanism adopted to implement an EE Program under RESP must not prevent the voluntary prepayment of the loan by the owner of the property. A RESP borrower may adopt any other repayment mechanism to carry out its EE Program with RESP proceeds as long as it can demonstrate that the proposed repayment mechanism has appropriate risk mitigation features and ensures repayment to the RESP borrower if the Qualified consumer will no longer be a customer of the RESP borrower.
Loans made by a RESP borrower to a Qualified consumer using RESP loan funds must require an Energy audit by the RESP borrower to determine the impact of the proposed Energy efficiency measures on the energy costs and consumption of the Qualified consumer. The RESP borrower may engage contractors to carry out the Energy audits necessary to fulfill this requirement. In so doing, the RESP borrower must engage contractors with adequate expertise to perform the Energy audits according to the applicable standards of the industry. The credentials of the energy auditors used or proposed to be used by the RESP Applicant will be subject to RUS review. RUS may reject a loan application or refuse to disburse loan proceeds to the RESP borrower that fails to demonstrate that the Energy audits will be or have been performed by qualified individuals.
4. Ancillary Provisions
a. Contractor's Expertise—Contractor's adequate expertise may be determined by using the following criteria:
i. Contractor's staff possesses a current residential or commercial Energy auditor or building analyst certification from a national, industry-recognized organization.
ii. Contractor's staff possesses proficiency in the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to conduct whole house assessments, building performance diagnostics and reasoning, and estimates of energy savings from improvement installations (via calculations or a modeling software tool) accredited by training and credentialing. The credentialing process must be at least as robust as those employed by nationally recognized certification bodies or suitable to meet or exceed the rigor of the standards of federal, state or local government entities.
iii. The contractor must demonstrate adequate capacity and resources to engage customers, conduct whole house assessments, building performance testing and diagnostic reasoning, and fulfillment of all program data collection and reporting requirements. This includes having access to satisfactory diagnostic equipment, tools, qualified staff, data systems and software, and administrative support.
iv. The contractor must be current and in good standing with all local registration and licensing requirements for their specific region and trade.
v. The contractor must employ or sub-contract to companies with workers who are qualified to install or physically oversee the installation of home performance improvements in compliance with local building codes and industry-accepted protocols.
vi. In the absence of fulfilling the first criterion under this subsection, the contractor for commercial Energy audits, must meet one of the following criteria:
A. Be a licensed professional engineer in the state in which the audit is conducted with at least 1 year experience and who has completed at least two similar type Energy audits;
B. Be an individual with a four-year engineering or architectural degree with at least 3 years of experience and who has completed at least five similar type Energy audits; or
C. Be an individual with an energy auditor certification recognized by the U.S. Department of Energy through its Better Buildings Workforce Guidelines project. For related information please visit:
b.
c.
d.
i. Lighting:
A. Lighting fixture upgrades to improve efficiency.
B. Re-lamping to more energy efficient bulbs.
C. Lighting controls.
ii. Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC):
A. Central Air Systems—Energy Star qualified equipment.
B. Economizers.
C. Heat pumps.
D. Furnaces—Energy Star qualified equipment.
E. Air Handlers.
F. Programmable controls.
G. Duct sealing.
iii. Building Envelope Improvements:
A. Improved insulation—added insulation beyond existing levels, or above existing building codes.
B. Caulking and weather stripping of doors and windows.
C. Window upgrades—Energy Star qualifying windows.
D. Door upgrades—door upgrades could include man-doors, and overhead doors with integrated insulation and energy efficient windows.
E. Materials listed in Appendix A to Part 440 of the U.S. Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program, 10 CFR part 440, Appendix A—Standards for Weatherization Materials.
iv. Water Heaters.
v. Compressed Air Systems.
vi. Motors:
A. High efficiency motors—motors with a rated efficiency beyond the Energy Policy Act standards.
B. Variable frequency drive.
vii. Boilers, dryers, heaters and process-related equipment or equipment not otherwise specified,
viii. Energy audits.
ix. On or Off Grid Renewable energy systems if consistent with the statutory purpose of RESP.
x. Energy storage devices if permanently installed to reduce the energy cost or usage of small businesses and families within a rural area.
xi. Energy efficient appliance upgrades if attached to real property as fixtures.
xii. Irrigation or water and waste disposal system efficiency improvements.
xiii. Necessary and incidental activities and investments directly related to implementation of an Energy efficiency measure.
e.
i. General. RUS will disburse RESP funds to the RESP borrower in accordance with the terms of the executed loan documents. Excluding the special advance for start-up activities, all loan funds will be disbursed either as an advance in anticipation of consumer loans to be made by the RESP borrower; or as a reimbursement for eligible program costs, including consumer loans already made, upon the RESP borrower having complied with the loan conditions set forth in the loan documents. Within a 12-month consecutive period, any disbursements of loan funds to an RESP borrower must not exceed 50 percent of the approved loan amount.
ii. Loan Advances. The RESP borrower must provide to the Qualified consumers all RESP loan funds that the RESP borrower receives within one year of receiving them from RUS. If the RESP borrower does not re-lend the RESP loan funds within one year, the unused RESP loan funds, and any interest earned on those RESP loan funds, must be returned to the Federal Government and will be applied to the RESP borrower's debt. The RESP borrower will not be eligible to receive additional RESP loan funds from RUS until providing evidence, satisfactory to RUS, that RESP loan funds from a previous advance have been fully relent to Qualified consumers or returned to the Federal Government.
RUS will disburse the RESP loan funds in advance only if: (i) The RESP borrower has established written procedures that will minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of RESP loan funds from RUS and their disbursement to the Qualified consumer; and, (ii) the requests for advances made by the RESP borrower are limited to the minimum amounts needed and timed to be in accordance with the actual immediate cash needs to carry out the Energy Efficiency program.
iii. Loan term for loans to Qualified consumers. Each loan made by the RESP borrower to a Qualified consumer may not exceed a term of 10 years.
iv. Unauthorized uses of funds. The RESP borrower must not finance the purchase or modification of personal property with proceeds from the RESP loan unless the personal property is or becomes attached to real property (including a manufactured home) as a fixture. The RESP borrower must keep adequate processes, procedures and records and must not commingle RESP funds with other sources of funding in the implementation of an EE Program.
1. General. A successful loan RESP Applicant will receive a Conditional commitment letter from the Administrator notifying it of the total loan amount approved by RUS; any additional controls on the its financial, investment, operational and managerial activities; acceptable security arrangements; and such other conditions deemed necessary by the Administrator to adequately secure the Government's interest and ensure repayment. Upon receipt of the acceptance of the loan offer from the RUS Borrower, RUS will begin to prepare the loan documents with the assistance of the Eligible entity. Upon completion of the loan documents, RUS will forward the loan documents to the RESP borrower.
Receipt of a Conditional commitment letter from the Administrator does not authorize the RESP borrower to commence performance under the award. All RUS requirements and loan conditions specified in the Conditional commitment letter must be met before the loan will be advanced. RUS will notify the RESP borrower when it is
2. Loan Term. RUS will make loans to RESP Applicant under RESP for a term not to exceed 20 years from the date on which the loan is closed.
3. Interest rate. Loans made under RESP will not bear interest (0 percent) although indebtedness not paid when due will be subject to interest, penalties, administrative costs and late fees as provided in the loan documents.
4. Repayment. The repayment of each advance to the RESP borrower must be amortized for a period not to exceed 10 years. However, any special advances under a loan must be made during the first 10-year period of the term of the underlying loan and repayment of such special advance shall be required during the 10 year period with such period beginning on the date on which such special advance is made. A RESP borrower may elect to defer the repayment of the special advance to the end of the 10-year period. However, all amounts advanced on the loan by RUS to the RESP borrower must be paid prior to the final maturity which must not exceed 20 years. The RESP borrower is responsible for fully repaying the RESP loan to RUS according to the loan documents regardless of repayment by its Qualified consumers.
5. Financial Ratios. The requirements for coverage ratios will be set forth in the Conditional commitment letter and RESP borrower's loan documents with RUS. The minimum coverage ratios required of RESP borrowers, whether applied on an annual or average basis will be determined by the Administrator on case-by-case basis based on the risk profile of the RESP Applicant and specific loan features. Existing RUS borrowers will be subject to their current debt service coverage ratios. When new loan documents are executed, the Administrator may, on a case-by-case basis, increase the coverage ratio of the RESP borrower if the Administrator determines that higher ratios are required to ensure the repayment made by RUS. Also, the Administrator may, on a case-by-case basis, reduce the coverage ratios if the Administrator determines that the lower ratios are required to ensure the repayment of the loan made by RUS.
6. Equity Requirements. The required equity position would be determined by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis and will be set forth in the Conditional commitment letter and the loan documents as a condition to the RESP loan.
7. Opinion of counsel. An opinion of counsel is required at closing and must be acceptable to the Administrator, opining that the RESP Applicant is properly organized and has the required corporate authority to enter into the proposed transaction. It must also identify the proposed collateral to secure the RESP loan and certify that such collateral is free of liens or identify any issues that may arise for the Government regarding the securing and perfecting of a first and prior lien on such property comprising the collateral.
8. Loan Term and Conditions. The Administrator reserves the right to modify or waive certain requirements if the Administrator believes such modifications or waiver are in the best interest of the government and the Administrator has determined that the loan will be repaid in the designated time period and the security is adequate. Also, the Administrator, at his sole discretion, may add such terms and conditions in a loan under this NOFA to ensure the RESP loan is timely repaid and is adequately secured.
9. Administrative and National Policy Requirements. The items listed in this notice implement the appropriate administrative and national policy requirements, which include but are not limited to:
a. Execution of a RESP loan agreement and related loan documents;
b. Compliance with policies, guidance, and requirements as described in Section D.2.a.vii. (Statement of Compliance with other federal statutes) of this notice, and any successor regulations.
10.
a.
b.
i. RUS accounting requirements include compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, as well as compliance with the requirements of the applicable regulations: 7 CFR part 200 (for RESP borrowers, under this CFR Part, the term “grant recipient” will also mean loan recipient) or the system of accounting prescribed by RUS Bulletin 1767. The Administrator may modify the accounting requirements if, in his judgement, it is necessary to satisfy the purpose of Section 6407.
ii. RESP borrowers must comply with all reasonable RUS requests to support ongoing monitoring efforts. The RESP borrowers must afford RUS, through their representatives, a reasonable opportunity, at all times during business hours and upon prior notice, to have access to and the right to inspect any or all books, records, accounts, invoices, contracts, leases, payrolls, timesheets, cancelled checks, statements, and other documents, electronic or paper of every kind belonging to or in possession of the RESP borrowers or in any way pertaining to its property or business, including its parents, affiliates, and subsidiaries, if any, and to make copies or extracts therefrom.
c.
Robert Coates, Electric Program, Rural Utilities Service, Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1568, Room 0217-S, Washington DC 20250-1510; Telephone: (202) 260-5415; Email:
Applicants may also consider the funding opportunities under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program, 7 CFR 1710, Subpart H.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs).
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:
a.
b.
c.
d. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 4, 2017, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) issued final judgment in
Scott Hoefke or Victoria Cho, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4947 or (202) 482-5075, respectively.
On May 20, 2015, the Department published its affirmative final determination of sales at less than fair value, in which it determined a weighted-average dumping margin of 2.24 percent for exporter PT Enterprise Inc. and its affiliated producer, Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise Inc. (Pro-Team) (collectively, PT).
On June 21, 2017, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to remand.
On October 4, 2017, the CIT entered judgment sustaining the Department's
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department amends the
Since the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516(A)(e), 735(c)(1)(B), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective November 20, 2017.
Alice Maldonado at (202) 482-4682 (Republic of Korea (Korea)) or Rebecca M. Janz at (202) 482-4682 (Taiwan), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On July 17, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of low melt polyester staple fiber (low melt PSF) from Korea and Taiwan.
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act permits the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner
On November 7, 2017, the petitioner submitted a timely request that the Department postpone the preliminary determinations in these LTFV investigations.
For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 8, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined copper pipe and tube from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review (POR), November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016. For the final results of this review, the Department continues to determine that the five remaining companies under review failed to establish their eligibility for a separate rate for the POR, and thus, are part of the PRC-wide entity. The final dumping margin of sales at the PRC-Wide Entity rate is listed below in the “Final Results” section of this notice.
Applicable November 20, 2017.
Julia Hancock or Courtney Canales, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1394 or (202) 482-4997, respectively.
On August 8, 2017, the Department published the
The merchandise subject to the order is seamless refined copper pipe and tube. The product is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090. Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS item numbers 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive.
As noted above, we received no comments on the
As no parties submitted comments on the
The final weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:
We have not calculated
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-Wide rate (
Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the final results within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the Department determined that China Hailiang, Shanghai Hailiang Trading, Hong Kong Hailiang, Shanghai Hailiang, and Zhejiang Hailiang are part of the PRC-wide entity, and have been assigned the PRC-wide rate, there are no calculations to disclose.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 18, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan. The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2015 through April 30, 2016. This review covers Shin Yang Steel Co., Ltd. (Shin Yang) and Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Hsing). Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled, “Final Results of the Review.”
Applicable November 20, 2017.
Scott Hoefke, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4947.
On May 18, 2017, the Department published the
The merchandise subject to the order is certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, and 7306.30.5055. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.
In the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made a change to the
As a result of this review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review within five days of the date of
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b).
For Shin Yang, because its weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
As noted in the “Final Determination of No Shipments” section, above, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by Yieh Hsing but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company was reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 9.70 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of public availability of FY 2016 Service Contract Inventory.
In accordance with Section 734 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2016 service contract inventory. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000, which the Bureau funded during FY 2016. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources were used by the agency to support its mission. The inventory has been developed in accordance with the guidance issued on November 5, 2010 and December 19, 2011 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at:
Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Karen Morris, Procurement Analyst, Office of Procurement, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (202) 435-9833.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), Department of Defense (DoD).
Federal advisory committee meeting notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel. This meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, December 6 and 7, 2017. Public registration will begin at 8:45 a.m. on each day. For entrance into the meeting, you must meet the necessary requirements for entrance into the Pentagon. For more detailed information, please see the following link:
Pentagon Library, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. The meeting room will be displayed on the information screen for both days. The Pentagon Library is located in the Pentagon Library and Conference Center (PLC2) across the Corridor 8 bridge.
LTC Robert McDonald, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), 3600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3600, email:
Minor changes to the agenda will be announced at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the FACA database after the meeting.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) will take place.
Day 1—Open to the public Tuesday, December 12, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.
Day 2—Open to the public Wednesday, December 13, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Hilton Alexandria—Mark Center (Arbor Conference Room), 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA 22311.
Jessica Myers, (703) 697-2122 (Voice), 703-614-6233 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of availability for licensing.
The Department of the Navy (DoN) announces the availability of the inventions listed below, assigned to the United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, for domestic and foreign licensing by the Department of the Navy.
Requests for copies of the patents cited should be directed to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane
Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div., Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, Email
The following patents are available for licensing: Patent No. 9,752,721 (Navy Case No. 100877): Portable Equipment System Mount//Patent No. 9,753,445 (Navy Case No. 200434): DUT Continuity Test With Only Digital IO Structures Apparatus and Methods Associated Thereof//Patent No. 9,772,818 (Navy Case No. 103042): Event Detection System Having Multiple Sensor Systems in Cooperation With an Impact Detection System//Patent No. 9,778,000 (Navy Case No. 200364): Off-Board Influence System//and Patent No. 9,778,008 (Navy Case No. 200308): Explosive Assembly Systems Including a Linear Shaped Charge End Prime Cap Apparatus and Related Methods.
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, interventions, protests, and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Panda Hummel Station 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 December 4, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., Public Service Company of New Mexico, Arizona Public Service Company, El Paso Electric Company, Black Hills Power, Inc., Black Hills Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP, Cheyenne Light, Fuel, & Power Company, NV Energy, Inc.; and Xcel Energy Services, Inc. on behalf of Public Service Company of Colorado:
The November 16, 2017 WestConnect Regional Planning Stakeholder Meeting and the December 20, 2017 Planning Management Committee Meeting will be held at: SRP Pera Club, 1 E Continental Dr., Tempe, AZ 85281.
The January 17, 2018 Planning Management Committee Meeting will be held at: APS Headquarters, 500 N 5th St., Phoenix, AZ 85004.
The above-referenced meetings will be available via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceeding:
For more information contact Nicole Cramer, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6775 or
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
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:
On November 9, 2017, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL18-23-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether DTE Electric Company's proposed revisions to its FERC Electric Tariff may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-23-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-23-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following settlement agreement has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. Consumers Energy Company and DTE Electric Company (Consumers and DTE Companies) filed a fish entrainment settlement agreement (settlement agreement) on behalf of Consumers and DTE Companies; Attorney General for the State of Michigan; Michigan Department of Natural Resources; United States Department of Interior, on behalf of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and as Trustee for Indian tribes, bands, or communities with reserved treaty rights in the Michigan waters of Lake Michigan; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians; Michigan United Conservation Clubs; and National Wildlife Federation. The purpose of the settlement agreement is to resolve among the signatories all issues associated with issuance of a new license for the project regarding fish entrainment. The signatories request that the Commission approve and incorporate into any new license that may be issued for the project the relevant portions of the settlement agreement as described in Section V.H. Included in the settlement agreement is a request from the signatories for a 50-year license term.
l. A copy of the settlement agreement 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
1. By letter filed August 24, 2017, Matthew W. Foley informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Wadhams Hydroelectric Project No. 9691, originally issued August 13, 1986
2. 8 Church Lane, LLC is now the exemptee of the Wadhams Hydroelectric Project No. 9691. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Mr. Matthew W. Foley and Ms. Elizabeth E. Rapalee, 8 Church Lane, LLC, 2531 County Route 10, Wadhams, NY 12993, Phone: 518-962-4514, Cell: 518-524-4240, Email:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the North Fork Nooksack Line Lowering Project, proposed by Northwest Pipeline LLC (Northwest) in the above-referenced docket. Northwest requests authorization to replace and lower approximately 1,700 feet of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline, and remove about 1,550 feet of previously abandoned 26-inch-diameter pipeline in Whatcom County, Washington. The North Fork Nooksack Line Lowering Project would eliminate a potential obstruction to river flow and improve system reliability.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the North Fork Nooksack Line Lowering Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.
The proposed North Fork Nooksack Line Lowering Project includes the following:
• Remove, replace, and lower approximately 1,700 feet of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in the same trench; and
• remove approximately 1,550 feet of previously abandoned 26-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline that would become exposed during the removal and installation of the 30-inch-diameter pipeline.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before December 13, 2017.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP17-133-000) with your submission. 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 eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
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 allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. 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
82 FR 52902.
Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice of hearing and request for comments.
The Commission has determined to hold hearings on January 16 and 17, 2018, to receive oral testimony concerning the Petition of the Coalition for Fair Port Practices for Rulemaking.
Request for appearance and comments are due by December 8, 2017.
All requests to appear and comments should be addressed to: Rachel Dickon, Assistant Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol St. NW., Room 1046, Washington, DC 20573-0001, Email:
On December 7, 2016 the Coalition for Fair Port Practices petitioned the Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) pursuant to 46 CFR 502.51 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure to initiate a rulemaking proceeding. Petitioner states the purpose of the rulemaking is for the Commission to adopt “a rule that will interpret the Shipping Act of 1984 . . . specifically 46 U.S.C. 41102(c)”. The petition and comments received are posted on the Commission's Web site at
The Commission will hold public hearings to explore further the issues surrounding P4-16, the Petition of the Coalition for Fair Port Practices and the related comments filed in this proceeding. The hearings will take place on January 16 and 17, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission's Main Hearing Room, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC. The hearing will be open for public observation.
Any person wishing to participate and speak at the hearing must send a request to appear as a participant witness no later than December 8, 2017, and include the name, street address, email address, telephone number, and the name of your company or employer, if any, together with a summary of the intended testimony, not to exceed three pages. The Commission will extend invitations to selected interested witnesses to participate in the hearing and may invite others to participate.
Copies of all written submissions will be posted to the Commission's Web site and will be available in the Commission's Office of the Secretary.
The petition arose out of experiences of coalition members—importers, exporters, drayage providers, freight forwarders, customs brokers, and third-party logistics providers—with port congestion that ultimately led to vessel ocean common carrier (VOCC) and marine terminal operator (MTO) assessments of detention, demurrage, and per diem charges. The petition lists events over the preceding five years that led to port congestion including Hurricane Sandy (2012), harsh winter (2013-2014), west coast labor agreement (2014-2015), cargo diversions from west coast to east coast (2015), winter storms (2014-2015), port hiring practices protests—New York/New Jersey (June 2016), and the Hanjin bankruptcy (Fall 2016).
On December 20, 2016, the Commission published a notice in the
The many responses to the Petition illustrate the complexity of issues surrounding ocean container shipping and marine terminal operations.
Given the importance of this issue, its complexity, and the public interest indicated by the number and quality of comments submitted in response to the Petition, the Commission will hold public hearings to further explore the issues raised by the Petition and address specific questions. Commentary and answers to these questions will be helpful to the Commission as it determines its next steps with regard to Petition P4-16.
By the Commission.
November 28, 2017, 8:30 a.m. (In-Person).
Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(6) and (c)(9)(B).
Adjourn.
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing notice that an applicant for a proposed biosimilar product notified FDA that a patent infringement action was filed in connection with the applicant's biologics license application (BLA). Under the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), an applicant for a proposed biosimilar product or interchangeable product must notify FDA within 30 days after the applicant was served with a complaint in a patent infringement action described under the PHS Act. FDA is required to publish notice of the complaint in the
Daniel Orr, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6246, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-0979,
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) on March 23, 2010. The BPCI Act amended the PHS Act and created an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed biological reference product. Section 351(k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)), added by the BPCI Act, describes the requirements for a BLA for a proposed biosimilar product or a proposed interchangeable product (351(k) BLA). Section 351(l) of the PHS Act, also added by the BPCI Act, describes certain procedures for exchanging patent information and resolving patent disputes between a 351(k) BLA applicant and the holder of the BLA reference product. If a 351(k) applicant is served with a complaint for a patent infringement described in section 351(l)(6) of the PHS Act, the applicant is required to provide FDA with notice and a copy of the complaint within 30 days of service. FDA is required to publish notice of a complaint received under section 351(l)(6)(C) of the PHS Act in the
FDA received notice of the following complaint under section 351(l)(6)(C) of the PHS Act:
FDA has only a ministerial role in publishing notice of a complaint received under section 351(l)(6)(C) of the PHS Act, and does not perform a substantive review of the complaint.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing that it has received a petition requesting exemption from the premarket notification requirements for over-the-counter (OTC) denture repair kits. These devices consist of material, such as a resin monomer system of powder and liquid glues, which is intended to be applied permanently to a denture to mend cracks or breaks. FDA is publishing this notice to obtain comments in accordance with procedures established by the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA).
Submit either electronic or written comments by January 19, 2018.
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 January 19, 2018. 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
Rebecca Nipper, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1540, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6527.
Under section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c), FDA must classify devices into one of three regulatory classes: Class I, class II, or class III. FDA classification of a device is determined by the amount of regulation necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (1976 amendments) (Pub. L. 94-295), as amended by the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), devices are to be classified into class I (general controls) if there is information showing that the general controls of the FD&C Act are sufficient to assure safety and effectiveness; into class II (special controls), if general controls, by themselves, are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such assurance; and into class III (premarket approval), if there is insufficient information to support classifying a device into class I or class II and the device is a life-sustaining or life-supporting device or is for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health or presents a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury.
Most generic types of devices that were on the market before the date of the 1976 amendments (May 28, 1976) (generally referred to as preamendments devices) have been classified by FDA under the procedures set forth in section 513(c) and (d) of the FD&C Act through the issuance of classification regulations into one of these three regulatory classes. Devices introduced into interstate commerce for the first time on or after May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as postamendments devices), are classified through the premarket notification process under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)). Section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and the implementing regulations, 21 CFR part 807, require persons who intend to market a new device to submit a premarket notification (510(k)) containing information that allows FDA to determine whether the new device is ”substantially equivalent” within the meaning of section 513(i) of the FD&C Act to a legally marketed device that does not require premarket approval.
On November 21, 1997, the President signed into law FDAMA (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 206 of FDAMA, in part, added new section 510(m) to the FD&C Act. Section 510(m)(1) of the FD&C Act requires FDA, within 60 days after enactment of FDAMA, to publish in the
Section 510(m)(2) of the FD&C Act provides that, 1 day after the date of publication of the list under section 510(m)(1), FDA may exempt a device on its own initiative or upon petition of an interested person, if FDA determines that a 510(k) is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. This section, as amended by the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255), requires FDA to publish in the
There are a number of factors FDA may consider to determine whether a 510(k) is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of a class II device. These factors are discussed in the guidance the Agency issued on February 19, 1998, entitled ”Procedures for Class II Device Exemptions from Premarket Notification, Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff.” That guidance is available through the internet at
FDA has received the following petition requesting an exemption from premarket notification for a class II device: Paul Hyman, Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, PC, 700 13th St. NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005-5929, for OTC denture repair kits, classified under 21 CFR 872.3570.
This notice refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice and request for comments. Request for extension of approval.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Indian Health Service (IHS) invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the information collection Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0917-0014, titled, “IHS Loan Repayment Program (LRP).”
This previously approved information collection project was last published in the
A copy of the draft supporting statement is available at
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 19, 2018.
Submit comments to Jackie Santiago by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be made available to the public by publishing them in the 30 day
To request additional information, please contact Evonne Bennett-Barnes, Information Collection Clearance Officer at:
The IHS is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies as required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques of other forms of information technology,
Eligible health professionals wishing to have their health education loans repaid may apply to the IHS LRP. A two-year contract obligation is signed by both parties, and the individual agrees to work at an eligible Indian health program location and provide health services to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals.
The information collected via the on-line application from individuals is analyzed and a score is given to each applicant. This score will determine which applicants will be awarded each fiscal year. The administrative scoring system assigns a score to the geographic location according to vacancy rates for that fiscal year and also considers whether the location is in an isolated area. When an applicant accepts employment at a location, the applicant in turn “picks-up” the score of that location.
There are no Capital Costs, Operating Costs, and/or Maintenance Costs to report.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is seeking public comment regarding its proposal to reorganize and to rename its Center for Research Capacity Building to the Division for Research Capacity Building, and transfer the Office of Emergency Care Research to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Any interested person may file written comments by sending an email to
The following email address has been established for comments on the reorganization:
Stephanie Older, Chief, Office of Communications and Public Liaison, NIGMS,
The National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is seeking public comment regarding its proposal to reorganize four of its scientific divisions into three: (1) Biophysics, Biomedical Technology and Computational Biosciences; (2) Genetics and Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology; and (3) Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry. Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), NIGMS will launch public Web site information at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of meetings of the NHLBI Special Emphasis Panel.
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of intent; request for comments.
The Coast Guard announces its intent to enter into a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with several companies to evaluate small unmanned aircraft systems (SUAS) sensors or payloads, to determine their potential use in a maritime environment by first responders and DHS operational components. The Coast Guard will conduct flight testing and evaluations of SUAS under a wide variety of simulated but realistic and relevant real-world maritime operational scenarios, such as: law enforcement; search and rescue; and maritime environmental responses. From our previous solicitations, the Coast Guard is currently considering partnering with AeroVironment, Inc. and solicits public comment on the possible participation of other parties in the proposed CRADA, and the nature of that participation. The Coast Guard also invites other potential non-Federal participants, who have the interest and capability to bring similar contributions to this type of research, to consider submitting proposals for consideration in similar CRADAs.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 20, 2017. Synopses of proposals regarding future CRADAs must also reach the Coast Guard on or before December 20, 2017.
Submit comments online at
If you have questions on this notice or wish to submit proposals for future CRADAs, contact Mr. Steve Dunn, Project Official, Systems Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center, 1 Chelsea Street, New London, CT 06320, telephone 860-271-2789, email
We request public comments on this notice. Although we do not plan to publish responses to comments in the
Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2017-0957 and should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that any personal information you include can be searchable online. For more about privacy and the docket, visit
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Portal at
Do not submit detailed proposals for future CRADAs to
CRADAs are authorized under 15 U.S.C. 3710(a).
CRADAs are not procurement contracts. Care is taken to ensure that CRADAs are not used to circumvent the contracting process. CRADAs have a specific purpose and should not be confused with procurement contracts, grants, and other type of agreements.
Under the proposed CRADA, the Coast Guard's Research and Development Center (R&DC) will collaborate with one or more non-Federal participants. Together, the R&DC and the non-Federal participants will evaluate SUAS and their airborne sensors to determine their potential for use in a maritime environment by a first responder and DHS operational components.
We anticipate that the Coast Guard's contributions under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
(1) Develop the demonstration test plan to be executed under the CRADA;
(2) Provide the SUAS test range, test range support, facilities, and all approvals required for a 5 day demonstration under the CRADA;
(3) Conduct the privacy threshold analysis required for the demonstration;
(4) Conduct the privacy impact assessment required for the demonstration;
(5) Coordinate any required spectrum approval for the SUAS;
(6) Coordinate and receive any required interim flight clearance for the demonstration;
(7) Provide any required airspace coordination and de-confliction for the demonstration test plan;
(8) Collect and analyze demonstration test plan data; and
(9) Develop a demonstration final report documenting the methodologies, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this CRADA work.
We anticipate that the non-Federal participants' contributions under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
(1) Provide SUAS and all other equipment to conduct the demonstration described in the demonstration test plan;
(2) Provide all required operators and technicians to conduct the demonstration;
(3) Provide technical data for the SUAS to be utilized;
(4) Provide shipment and delivery of all SUAS equipment required for the demonstration; and
(5) Provide travel and associated personnel and other expenses as required.
The Coast Guard reserves the right to select for CRADA participants all, some, or no proposals submitted for this CRADA. The Coast Guard will provide no funding for reimbursement of proposal development costs. Proposals and any other material submitted in response to this notice will not be returned. Proposals submitted are expected to be unclassified and have no more than five single-sided pages (excluding cover page, DD 1494, JF-12, etc.). The Coast Guard will select proposals at its sole discretion on the basis of:
(1) How well they communicate an understanding of, and ability to meet, the proposed CRADA's goal; and
(2) How well they address the following criteria:
(a) Technical capability to support the non-Federal party contributions described; and
(b) Resources available for supporting the non-Federal party contributions described.
Currently, the Coast Guard is considering AeroVironment, Inc. for participation in this CRADA, because they have demonstrated the ability to operate SUAS in a maritime environment. However, we do not wish to exclude other viable participants from this or future similar CRADAs.
This is a technology demonstration effort. The goal of this CRADA is to identify and investigate the potential of the SUAS and their airborne sensors to determine their potential use in a maritime environment by the first responder and the DHS operational components. Special consideration will be given to small business firms/consortia, and preference will be given to business units located in the U.S.
This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 15 U.S.C. 3710(a).
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-day notice and request for comments; Revised Information Collection Request: 1670-0030.
The DHS NPPD Office of Cybersecurity & Communications (CS&C), Cybersecurity Education & Awareness Office (CE&A), National Initiative for Cybersecurity Careers and Studies (NICCS) will submit the following Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 19, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR part 1320.
Comments must be identified by “DHS-2017-0048” and may be submitted by
•
•
•
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Shannon Nguyen at 703-705-6246 or at
Title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 121(d)(1), says that the Secretary of Homeland Security has the
The NICCS Portal is a national online resource for cybersecurity awareness, education, talent management, and professional development and training. NICCS Portal is an implementation tool for NICE. Its mission is to provide comprehensive cybersecurity resources to the public.
To promote cybersecurity education, and to provide a comprehensive resource for the Nation, NICE developed the Cybersecurity Training and Education Catalog. The Cybersecurity Training and Education Catalog will be hosted on the NICCS Portal. Training course and certification information will be included in the Training/Workforce Development Catalog.
Any information received from the public in support of the NICCS Portal and Cybersecurity Training and Education Catalog is completely voluntary. Organizations and individuals who do not provide information can still utilize the NICCS Portal and Cybersecurity Training and Education Catalog without restriction or penalty. An organization or individual who wants their information removed from the NICCS Portal and/or Cybersecurity Training and Education Catalog can email the NICCS Supervisory Office.
CE&A uses the collected information from the NICCS Cybersecurity Training Course Form and the NICCS Cybersecurity Certification Form and displays it on a publicly accessible Web site called the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Careers and Studies (NICCS) Portal (
The DHS CE&A NICCS Supervisory Office will use information collected from the NICCS Vendor Vetting Form to primarily manage communications with the training/workforce development providers; this collected information will not be shared with the public and is intended for internal use only. Additionally, this information will be used to validate training providers before uploading their training and certification information to the Training Catalog.
The DHS CE&A NICCS Supervisory Office will use information collected from the NICCS Mapping Tool Form to provide an end user with information of how their position or job title aligns to the new Cybersecurity Framework 1.1. This collected information will not be shared with the public and is intended for internal use only.
The information will be collected via fully electronic web forms or partially electronic via email. Collection will be coordinated between the public and DHS CE&A via email (
The revisions to the collection include: The addition of the NICCS Mapping Tool, the updates to the Training Course Form, Changing a form name from Vetting Criteria Form to Vendor Vetting Form, Course Certification Form has been updated to be collected via email as a CSV file.
OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.
Notice of proposed official filing.
The plats of surveys for the lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed 30 calendar days after the date of this publication in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky Mountain Region, Billings, Montana, are necessary for the management of these lands.
A person or party who wishes to protest this decision must file a notice of protest in time for it to be received in the BLM Montana State Office no later than 30 days after the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Josh Alexander, BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Montana; telephone: (406) 896-5123; email:
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest an official filing of a plat of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Montana at the address listed in the
If a notice of protest of the plat(s) of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing or during the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a) and the delay in filing is waived, the official filing of the plat(s) of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day after all timely protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.
If a notice of protest is received after the scheduled date of official filing and the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a), the notice of protest will be untimely, may not be considered, and may be dismissed.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chapter 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is adjusting certain special recreation permit fees for various recreation activities on BLM-administered public lands and related waters. The BLM is adjusting the minimum fee for commercial, competitive, organized group activities or events, and assigned sites.
The fee adjustments will become applicable on November 20, 2017.
David Ballenger, Division of Recreation and Visitor Services, 202-912-7642. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 to contact Mr. Ballenger during normal business hours. The Service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with Mr. Ballenger. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
This notice establishes that, effective on November 20, 2017, the Special Recreation Permit (SRP) minimum fee for commercial use is $110 per year. The minimum fee for both competitive and organized group activities and events is $6 per person per day, and the minimum fee for an assigned site is $220 per site.
The BLM Director is authorized to periodically adjust fees by the regulations found at 43 CFR 2932.31(b). The previous fee schedule went into effect on March 1, 2014. Commercial and reserved site fees are rounded to the nearest $5. Competitive and group use fees are rounded to the nearest $1. Individual states also have the option of imposing application fees as a matter of cost recovery and/or establishing higher minimum fees for SRPs. The next fee adjustment is scheduled for March 1, 2020.
The intended effect of the fee calculation process is to ensure that fees cover administrative costs of permit issuance, provide a fair return to the U.S. Government for use of the public lands, and reflect fair market value. The BLM, in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service, automatically adjusts the minimum commercial, competitive, organized group and activity special recreation permit fees and minimum assigned site fee every 3 years.
These fees are calculated and adjusted based on the change in the Implicit Price Deflator-Gross Domestic Product Index (IPD-GDP). The IPD-GDP is also available from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, at the following Web site:
43 U.S.C. 1740, 16 U.S.C. 6802, and 43 CFR 2932.31
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.
Notice of proposed official filing.
The plats of surveys for the lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed 30 calendar days after the date of this publication in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
A person or party who wishes to protest this decision must file a notice of protest in time for it to be received in the BLM Montana State Office no later than 30 days after the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Josh Alexander, BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Montana; telephone: (406) 896-5123; email:
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest an official filing of a plat of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Montana at the address listed in the
If a notice of protest of the plat(s) of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing or during the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a) and the delay in filing is waived, the official filing of the plat(s) of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day after all timely protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.
If a notice of protest is received after the scheduled date of official filing and the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a), the notice of protest will be untimely, may not be considered, and may be dismissed.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chapter 3.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection for requirements for permits for special categories of mining.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 19, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Attn: John Trelease, 1849 C Street NW.; Mail Stop 4559, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact John Trelease by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the OSMRE; (2) is the estimate of burden accurate; (3) how might the OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how might the OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The authorities for this action are the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1201
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection for requirements for coal exploration.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 19, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Attn: John Trelease, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 4559, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact John Trelease by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the OSMRE; (2) is the estimate of burden accurate; (3) how might the OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how might the OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The authorities for this action are the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1201
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection for requirements for reclamation and operation plans.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 19, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Attn: John Trelease, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 4559, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact John Trelease by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the OSMRE; (2) is the estimate of burden accurate; (3) how might the OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how might the OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The authorities for this action are the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1201
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Align Technology, Inc. on November 14, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3275”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Align Technology, Inc. on November 14, 2017.
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3274”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on October 10, 2017, under the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Aqua Connect, Inc. and Strategic Technology Partners, LLC, both of Orange, California. A letter supplementing the complaint and attaching supplemental exhibits was filed on November 2, 2017. A second supplemental letter requesting revision of the original caption was also filed on November 2, 2017. The complaint as supplemented alleges violations of the Tariff Act based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain personal computers, mobile devices, digital media players, and microconsoles by reason of infringement of one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. RE46,386 (“the '386 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,924,502 (“the '502 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
A motion for temporary relief filed concurrently with the complaint requests that the Commission issue a temporary limited exclusion order and temporary cease and desist order prohibiting the importation into and the sale within the United States after importation of certain Mac computers running macOS 10.7 or above that infringe claims 1, 4, 9, and 27 of the
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain personal computers, mobile devices, digital media players, and microconsoles by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4, 8-19, 21-29, and 31-35 of the '386 patent and 1-4, 8-19, 21-29, 31-36, and 38 of the '502 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.58 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.58, the motion for temporary relief under subsection (e) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which was filed with the complaint, is provisionally accepted and referred to the presiding administrative law judge for investigation;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge. Either the Chief Administrative Law Judge or the presiding Administrative Law Judge is authorized to designate the investigation as “more complicated” should either one so determine.
Responses to the complaint, the motion for temporary relief, and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with sections 210.13 and 210.59 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13 and 210.59. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16 (e), 210.13(a), and 210.59, such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 10 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint, the motion for temporary relief, and the notice of investigation if the investigation has not been declared “more complicated.” Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint, motion for temporary relief, and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint, in the motion for temporary relief, and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint, the motion for temporary relief, and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint, the motion for temporary relief, and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 26, 2017, under the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Kyocera Senco Brands Inc. of Cincinnati, Ohio. A supplement was filed on October 5, 2017. An amended complaint was filed on October 17, 2017. Supplements to the amended complaint were filed on November 3, 2017, November 8, 2017 and November 9, 2017. The amended complaint as supplemented alleges violations of the Tariff Act based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain gas spring nailer products and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of U.S. Patent No. 8,011,547 (“the '547 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,267,296 (“the '296 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,267,297 (“the '297 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,387,718 (“the '718 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,286,722 (“the '722 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,602,282 (“the '282 patent”). The amended complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, as amended, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
The Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain gas spring nailer products and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claim 30 of the '547 patent; claims 1 and 11 of the '296 patent; claims 1 and 32 of the '297 patent; claims 1, 10, and 16 of the '718 patent; claims 1 and 16 of the '722 patent; and claim 1 of the '282 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Kyocera Senco Brands Inc., 4270 Ivy Pointe Boulevard, Cincinnati, OH 45245.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the amended complaint is to be served: Hitachi Koki U.S.A., Limited, 1111 Broadway Avenue, Braselton, GA 38517.
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not be named as a party to this investigation.
Responses to the amended complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the amended complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the amended complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the amended complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the amended complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the amended complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
In accordance with Section 610(b)(2) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, and the heading “Millennium Challenge Corporation” of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is publishing a summary of the Millennium Challenge Compact between the United States of America, acting through MCC, and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire. Representatives of MCC and Côte d'Ivoire signed the compact on November 7, 2017. The complete text of the compact has been posted at:
MCC has signed a five-year, $524,740,000 compact with the Government of Côte d'Ivoire that is aimed at reducing poverty and accelerating economic growth. The compact seeks to address two binding constraints to economic growth in Côte d'Ivoire: (i) Low levels of basic, technical, and vocational skills; and (ii) barriers to moving goods and people, especially in Abidjan. The compact will address these constraints through two projects designed to support the diversification of the Ivoirian economy in its drive for emergence: (i) the Skills for Employability and Productivity Project (“Skills Project”); and (ii) the Abidjan Transport Project.
After passing only five MCC policy indicators in fiscal year 2012, Côte d'Ivoire began a systematic effort to improve its policy performance in order to qualify for MCC funding. As a result of those efforts, Côte d'Ivoire has consistently passed the MCC scorecard since FY 2015, and in FY 2017 the country passed 14 indicators. In FY 2015, MCC's Board of Directors selected Côte d'Ivoire for a threshold program and in FY 2016, based on continued policy improvement, for development of a compact proposal. The compact is seen in Côte d'Ivoire as the fruit of a long journey of sustained engagement with MCC and is poised to become a central pillar of the country's relationship with the United States.
Côte d'Ivoire is located in the coastal zone of West Africa and has a population of 22.7 million people, 41.5 percent of whom are under the age of 14, and a gross national income per capita of $1,420. With five major ethnic groups, a sizeable immigrant population making up a quarter of the population, and more than 60 local languages
From independence in 1960 until 1979, Côte d'Ivoire enjoyed strong economic growth and was seen by many as the economic, political, and cultural center of West Africa. However, the country's economy was largely dependent on a few main exports, notably cocoa. When the world market price for cocoa fell sharply in the 1980s, Côte d'Ivoire's economy collapsed. The country struggled with political instability throughout the 1990s and 2000s, including a civil war from 2002 to 2004, and a second civil war from March to April 2011. Since 2012, political stability has allowed the economy to recover from years of stagnation, with gross domestic product growth rates averaging nine percent per year over the past five years. Despite this recovery, there is a palpable sense among Côte d'Ivoire's population that the fruits of recent growth have not been widely shared. Moreover, despite some recent diversification, the country remains overly dependent on the same narrow set of exports.
The compact is based on the premise that for Côte d'Ivoire to achieve sustainable and inclusive growth—and escape the boom and bust cycle of the past—it must diversify its economy. MCC and Côte d'Ivoire identified two constraints to economic growth that will be addressed in the compact: (i) Low levels of basic, technical, and vocational skills; and (ii) barriers to moving goods and people, especially in Abidjan. The compact will address these constraints through the Skills and Abidjan Transport Projects. Côte d'Ivoire is committed to implementing these projects in a sustainable manner in order to
• Resolve critical youth education and unemployment issues;
• increase the competitiveness of Abidjan as the country's economic growth hub by improving the mobility of goods and people; and
• diversify its economy while promoting public-private partnerships.
The compact is expected to allow Côte d'Ivoire to resume its economic preeminence in West Africa and become a desired location for employment-intensive industries such as manufacturing and business process outsourcing, as well as help mitigate lingering socio-political issues.
The budget for the compact is detailed below:
The Skills Project aims to (i) to increase the number of years of education received and improve the acquisition of quality, in-demand basic skills, including reading, math, and soft skills, for lower secondary students; and (ii) to improve the acquisition of quality, in-demand technical skills and increase job-placement rates among graduates of compact-supported technical and vocational education and training (TVET) centers. The Skills Project is designed to equip those in Abidjan, as well as in two additional economic hubs, with skills to meet the demands of the private sector in an expanding and diversifying economy. Investments in the regions of Gbêkê, in the center-north of Côte d'Ivoire, and San Pedro, in the west of the country, will allow MCC funding to capitalize on opportunities to address the country's profound gender, socioeconomic, and geographic inequalities and to improve access to basic education, technical vocational training, and economic opportunities more broadly. The Skills Project is composed of the following two activities:
•
•
The Abidjan Transport Project aims to reduce vehicle operating costs and travel times along targeted road segments, while improving overall pedestrian and vehicle mobility and safety. MCC funding will support infrastructure works designed to improve traffic fluidity and decongest central corridors of the city linking the Port of Abidjan to points north, west, and east, as well as integrate new pavement design technologies that aim to reduce total lifecycle user costs. This project consists of two activities:
•
•
The estimated economic rate of return (ERR) for the Skills Project is 10.6 percent over 20 years. The project seeks to improve student learning outcomes and increase the number of years that students attend school. Both of these benefits are expected to increase future lifetime earnings for the participating students. The Technical and Vocational Education and Training Activity is expected to result in students acquiring specific, market-demanded skills through additional years of schooling, which results in higher employment rates and higher lifetime earnings.
The estimated ERR for the Abidjan Transport Project is 22.6 percent over 20 years. While vehicle operating costs and time savings are expected to be the immediate microeconomic benefits of the project, the project is also expected to contribute to the economy of Côte d'Ivoire's largest city by improving access to jobs, goods, and social services.
Overall, the compact is expected to benefit at least 11,300,000 people over 20 years. Approximately 300,000 Skills Project beneficiaries are expected to be Abidjan residents and therefore also beneficiaries of the Abidjan Transport Project; accordingly, they have been deducted from the total number of compact beneficiaries to avoid double counting.
MCC and Côte d'Ivoire have agreed on several policy reform areas to support the sustainability of the compact program. In the Skills Project, Côte d'Ivoire will allocate sufficient annual public expenditures for lower secondary education and TVET to support and maintain MCC's investments by providing adequate teachers and budgets for secondary schools and operational subsidies for TVET centers. Côte d'Ivoire will also develop, institutionalize, and operationalize a national gender policy for the education sector in order to help rectify gender disparities in the Ivoirian education system. Finally, MCC plans to contribute to the modernization of the country's outdated and ineffective teacher training program and, through the TVET investment, help the government transition from being an ineffective service provider to being a regulator and financer of training provided in TVET centers that are operated by and for the private sector.
In the Abidjan Transport Project, MCC's assistance will be accompanied by reforms designed to improve the governance and financial sustainability of Côte d'Ivoire's road maintenance fund. In particular, Côte d'Ivoire will increase the amount of revenue allocated to the road fund over the life of the compact, reduce the debt burden currently held by the road fund, and increase road user participation in the governance structure of the road fund in order to create a more market-oriented entity. Côte d'Ivoire has also agreed on mechanisms to eliminate illegal truck parking in the zone around the Port of Abidjan, which is expected to contribute significantly to the reduction of traffic congestion in this important area of the city.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Heliophysics Advisory Committee. This Committee reports to the Director, Heliophysics Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Wednesday, November 29, 2017, 1:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.; Thursday, November 30, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; and December 1, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-3:45 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546. Room number on November 29 will be Room 5H41; on November 30, Room 7H41-A; and on December 1, Room 5H41-A.
Ms. KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355, fax (202) 358-2779, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. This meeting will also be available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the USA toll free conference call number 1-888-603-8921 or toll number 1-312-470-7052, passcode 9896208, to participate in this meeting by telephone for all three days. The WebEx link is
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
• Heliophysics Division Update
• Government Performance and Results Modernization Act (GPRAMA) Discussion and Recommendations
• Senior Review of Operating Missions Outbrief
• Heliophysics Research and Analysis Program
• Heliophysics Science Centers Program
• Discussion of NASA High End Computing (HEC) and Future High-Performance Computing Resources for the Heliophysics Community
The agenda will be posted on the Heliophysics Advisory Committee Web page:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Technology, Innovation and Engineering Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Committee reports to the NAC.
Tuesday, December 5, 2017, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 6H41, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Mr. Mike Green, Designated Federal Officer, NAC Technology, Innovation and Engineering Committee, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4710, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. This meeting is also available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the toll free access number 1-844-467-6272, and then the numeric participant passcode 102421 followed by the # sign. The WebEx link is
The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Closed teleconference of the Committee on Strategy of the National Science Board, to be held Monday, November 27, 2017 from 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. EST.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Closed.
Committee Chair's opening remarks; Committee feedback on NSF's draft Strategic Plan; and Committee and Board engagement on the FY 2020 budget development process.
Point of contact for this meeting is: Kathy Jacquart, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. Telephone: (703) 292-8000. You may find meeting information and updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) at
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “NRC Form 354, Data Report on Spouse.”
Submit comments by December 20, 2017.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Brandon De Bruhl, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0026), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-0710, email:
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0113 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “NRC Form 354, Data Report on Spouse.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of November 20, 27, December 4, 11, 18, 25, 2017.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 20, 2017.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 4, 2017.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 18, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 25, 2017.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Thursday, December 14, 2017, 2 p.m. (OPEN Portion). 2:15 p.m. (CLOSED Portion).
Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
Meeting OPEN to the Public from 2 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. Closed portion will commence at 2:15 p.m. (approx.)
Information on the meeting may be obtained from Catherine F. I. Andrade at (202) 336-8768, or via email at
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of request for OMB approval.
PBGC is requesting that OMB approve, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a collection of information under its regulations on the disclosure of termination information for distress terminations, and for PBGC-initiated terminations. This notice informs the public of PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collection of information that must be provided by plan administrators and plan sponsors to affected parties upon request.
Comments should be submitted by December 20, 2017.
Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, via electronic mail at
A copy of the request will be posted at
Jo Amato Burns (
Sections 4041 and 4042 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1301-1461, govern the termination of single-employer defined benefit pension plans that are subject to Title IV of ERISA. A plan administrator may initiate a distress termination under section 4041(c), and PBGC may itself initiate proceedings to terminate a pension plan under section 4042 if PBGC determines that certain conditions are present. Sections 4041 and 4042 of ERISA were amended by Section 506 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-280) to require that, upon a request by an affected party—
• A plan administrator must disclose information it has submitted to PBGC in
• A plan administrator or plan sponsor must disclose information it has submitted to PBGC in connection with a PBGC-initiated termination.
PBGC is also required to disclose the administrative record relating to a PBGC-initiated termination upon request by an affected party. The above provisions are applicable to terminations initiated on or after August 17, 2006. The applicable regulatory provisions can be found at 29 CFR 4041.51 and 4042.5.
This collection of information was most recently approved by OMB under control number 1212-0065. PBGC is requesting that OMB approve the collection of information for three years, without change. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
On September 7, 2017 (82 FR 42366), PBGC published a notice informing the public that it intended to request OMB approval and soliciting public comment. No comments were received.
Based on information for calendar years 2014-2016, PBGC estimates that approximately 75 plans will terminate as distress or PBGC-initiated terminations each year. A survey conducted by PBGC of nine plans found that two of the nine plans surveyed received requests for termination information. Based on the foregoing, PBGC estimates that two participants or other affected parties of every nine distress terminations or PBGC-initiated terminations filed will annually make requests for termination information, or
Based on information derived from the survey of nine plans, PBGC estimates that the hour burden for plan administrators and sponsors will be about 20 hours, with the aggregate, annual burden estimated to be 340 hours (17 plans*20 hours). The dollar equivalent of the hour burden is estimated to be $25,500 (340 hours*$75 per hour) based on an assumed blended hourly rate of $75 for administrative, clerical, and supervisory time per hour for the staff of plan administrators and sponsors.
PBGC expects that all the work will be performed in-house by the staff of plan administrators and sponsors PBGC expects costs to be recovered from affected parties because plan administrators and plan sponsors may charge a reasonable fee for non-electronic disclosure. Therefore, the annual cost to the plan administrators and sponsors is estimated to be $0.
Issued in Washington, DC.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
This notice identifies Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency that were established or revoked from July 1, 2017 to July 31, 2017.
Senior Executive Resources Services, Senior Executive Service and Performance Management, Employee Services, (202) 606-2246.
In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the
No schedule A authorities to report during July 2017.
No schedule B authorities to report during July 2017.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during July 2017.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during July 2017.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at Rule 7018 to: (i) Change the volume threshold needed to qualify for one of the credits for displayed quotes and orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange; and (ii) add a new credit for both providing liquidity to, and removing liquidity from, the Exchange.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to (i) change the volume threshold needed to qualify for one of the credits for displayed quotes and orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange; and (ii) add a new credit for displayed quotes and orders that provide liquidity to, and remove liquidity from, the Exchange.
Rule 7018 sets forth the fees and credits for use of the order execution and routing services of Nasdaq for securities priced at $1 or more. Rule 7018(a)(1) sets forth the fees and credits for the execution and routing of orders in Nasdaq-listed securities; Rule 7018(a)(2) sets forth the fees and credits for the execution and routing of securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), and Rule 7018(a)(3) sets forth the fees and credits for the execution and routing of securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE (“Tape B Securities”).
Currently, Nasdaq pays a credit of $0.0029 per share executed for securities listed on Nasdaq, NYSE and Tape B Securities when the member adds liquidity in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represents more than 0.45% of Consolidated Volume during the month.
Nasdaq is making this change because it believes the new volume requirement is more closely aligned to the amount of the credit. This increase is also reflective of the Exchange's desire to provide incentives to attract order flow to the Exchange in return for significant market-improving behavior. By modestly increasing the volume of liquidity that a member must add during the month in order to qualify for the corresponding credit, this change will help ensure that members are providing significant market-improving behavior in return for credits.
Nasdaq is also proposing to add a new credit for securities that are listed on Nasdaq, NYSE and Tape B Securities. Specifically, the member will qualify for a rebate of $0.0029 per share executed if the member (i) removes liquidity in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represents more than 0.70% of Consolidated Volume during the month, and (ii) adds liquidity in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represents more than 0.50% of Total Consolidated Volume during the month. Nasdaq is therefore amending the relevant language in Rule 7018(a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3) to reflect this change. Nasdaq is adding this rebate to incentivize members to both add and remove liquidity on the Exchange in Nasdaq and NYSE-listed securities and Tape B securities, and to provide members with another way in which they may qualify for a rebate.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that changing the requirement that members add liquidity that represents more than 0.45% of Consolidated Volume to require members to add liquidity that represents more than 0.60% of Consolidated Volume during the month in order to qualify for the $0.0029 credit is reasonable. The Exchange notes that it is not changing the amount of the
The Exchange believes that the increase in the volume threshold needed to qualify for the $0.0029 credit is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same credit to all similarly situated members that meet its requirements. The credit and its corresponding volume requirement will apply equally to transactions in Nasdaq and NYSE-listed and Tape B Securities. The Exchange believes that the new volume requirement will not significantly impact the number of members that will likely qualify for the corresponding credit, since the new volume threshold is a modest increase over the current volume threshold. Participation in the Exchange's various credit tiers is completely voluntary, and members may always elect to either qualify for the corresponding credit by adding sufficient liquidity to the Exchange to meet the new volume requirement, or by electing to qualify for a different credit. Finally, by modestly increasing the volume of liquidity that a member must add during the month in order to qualify for the corresponding credit, this change will help ensure that members are providing significant market-improving behavior in return for credits.
Nasdaq believes that the new credit tier for adding and removing liquidity is reasonable. Nasdaq notes that the amount of the credit is either comparable or identical to other credits that it offers pursuant to Rule 7018, and believes that the requirements are comparable to other requirements needed to qualify for other credits.
Nasdaq also believes that the new credit tier for adding and removing liquidity is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory. As with the change discussed above, the Exchange will apply the same credit and its corresponding volume requirements to all similarly situated members that meet its requirements. The new credit will apply equally to transactions in Nasdaq and NYSE-listed and Tape B Securities. Participation in the Exchange's various credit tiers is completely voluntary, and members may always elect to either qualify for this new credit by adding sufficient liquidity to, and removing sufficient liquidity from, the Exchange to meet the new volume requirements, or by electing to qualify for a different credit. With this credit and its corresponding requirements, Nasdaq is attempting to incentivize members to both add liquidity to, and remove liquidity from, the Exchange in meaningful amounts, which contributes to the Exchange's overall market quality and benefits all Exchange participants.
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. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the proposed change to the volume threshold for the $0.0029 credit does not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. The Exchange will apply the same volume thresholds to all members for transactions in Nasdaq and NYSE-listed and Tape B Securities. Participation in the Exchange's various credit tiers is completely voluntary, and Nasdaq does not believe that the new volume threshold will significantly impact the number of members that will likely qualify for the corresponding credit. Members may always elect to either qualify for the new volume threshold by adding sufficient liquidity to the Exchange to meet the new volume requirement, or by electing to qualify for a different credit. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed volume threshold will not negatively impact who will qualify for the corresponding credit, but will rather have a positive impact on overall market quality as members increase their participation in the market to qualify for that credit. If, however, the Exchange is incorrect and the changes proposed herein are unattractive to members, it is likely that Nasdaq will lose market share as a result.
Similarly, the proposed new credit tier for adding and removing liquidity does not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. The Exchange will apply the same volume thresholds to all members for transactions in Nasdaq and NYSE-listed and Tape B Securities. Participation in the Exchange's various credit tiers is completely voluntary, and members may always elect to either qualify for the new credit by adding sufficient liquidity to, and removing sufficient liquidity from, the Exchange to meet the new volume requirements, or by electing to qualify for a different credit. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed credit will have a positive
Accordingly, Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Participants previously submitted an amendment to clarify the application of the Non-Display Use Policy.
In order to correct misinformation regarding the applicability of the Non-Display Use and access fees, the Participants believe that it is important to clarify that Non-Professional Users
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3) under Regulation NMS,
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on the proposed Amendments. Set forth in Sections I and II is the statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendments, along with the information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act, prepared and submitted by the Participants to the Commission.
The Participants amended the Plans' fee schedules in October 2014 to establish fees for Non-Display Uses of data and reduce the device fees assessed on Professional Subscribers.
The 2014 Fee Amendments realigned the Plans' fees more closely with the ways in which data recipients consume market data. To reflect the changes in consumption of market data, the Participants reduced the rates that Professional Subscribers paid for each of their display devices while establishing fees for non-display consumption of data, referred to as Non-Display Use.
For example, among other fee reductions, the Professional Subscriber fee was reduced for individuals and firms having only one or two devices, with a ten percent decrease in the fees charged to these subscribers. The other tiered device rates for Professional Subscribers also were reduced. The monthly device fees currently range from $19 to $45 for Network A and is $23 for Network B. Additionally, in the 2014 Fee Amendments, the Participants retained the monthly $1.00 Non-Professional User fee as a cost-effective rate for retail investors.
The 2014 Fee Amendments created Non-Display Use fees in recognition of the increasingly large amounts of data being made available and the significant value vendors and their subscribers could derive from using data received in a non-display manner. Non-Display Use was defined in the 2014 Fee Amendments as any use accessing, processing, or consuming real-time Network A or Network B quotation information or last sale price information for a purpose other than in support of a data recipient's display or further internal or external redistribution.
The 2014 Fee Amendments provided a non-exhaustive list of examples of Non-Display Use,
• Trading in any asset class;
• Automated order or quote generation and/or order pegging;
• Price referencing for algorithmic trading;
• Price referencing for smart order routing;
• Operations control programs;
• Investment analysis;
• Order verification;
• Surveillance programs;
• Risk management;
• Compliance; and
• Portfolio Valuation.
The Participants established three categories of Non-Display Use of market data:
• Category 1 applies when a data recipient makes Non-Display Use of real-time market data on its own behalf.
• Category 2 applies when a data recipient makes Non-Display Use of real-time market data on behalf of its customers.
• Category 3 applies when a data recipient makes non-display uses of real-time market data for the purpose of internally matching buy and sell orders within an organization.
The Non-Display Use Fee is $2,000 per category for Network A and $1,000 per category for Network B. Data recipients can be charged for each of the three categories of Non-Display Use they utilize. Importantly though, if a data recipient makes Non-Display Use of real-time market data on behalf of its customers (a Category 2 use), its customers are not charged the Category 2 Non-Display Use fee or the access fee. Instead, the data recipient (who in this example could be a broker-dealer using
CTA currently charges an access fee to any subscriber with access to data feeds. This fee is charged based on the receipt of data, rather than how the data is used. If a subscriber is receiving a data feed,
Following the 2014 Fee Amendments, the Participants became aware that certain vendors were characterizing the usage of their customers as subject to solely the device fees despite the fact that the vendors were not delivering the data in a controlled format. Rather, the data was being delivered in a format that enabled their customers to integrate the data into their own systems and software for Non-Display Use. The Participants understand that certain vendors use this characterization to offer their customers the ability to avoid the non-display and access charges due under the Plan to the detriment of other vendors who properly characterized how they delivered the data as being subject to access fees and their customers' usage as being subject to the Non-Display Use fees. The Participants believe that this characterization is clearly contrary to the language and purpose of the 2014 Fee Amendments.
It is important, therefore, to understand the different types of data products that can be provided by a vendor, generally falling into two categories.
The first category consists of data distributed in a form that only enables it to be visibly displayed on a device such that the data recipient can only see the consolidated quotation and last sale information without being able to integrate the data into the recipient's own systems and software; the proposed amendment will have no effect on what users of this type of product pay. The device fee contemplates that once that data has been visibly displayed via a graphical user interface, it can be exported via a data delivery exchange to a format such as Excel for further display use. For example, for a Professional Subscriber, use of Bloomberg's Excel add-in features, would be subject to the existing device fee, currently set at a maximum of $45 per unit, and would not be considered Non-Display Use. As described above, this category would not subject a subscriber to any access fees.
The second category consists of data being provided to a subscriber in a format that enables the subscriber to incorporate the data into the data recipient's systems and software. This type of subscriber is essentially doing through a vendor what it could do if the subscriber accessed data directly from CTA: The vendor is functionally acting as a pipe through which the data is delivered to the subscriber. This type of delivery of data is subject to access fees, and, depending upon usage, non-display fees.
The Participants are concerned that certain vendors are providing subscribers with a level of access to market data that allows the subscriber to use the market data for Non-Display purposes, yet those vendors are not reporting that delivery of data as a data feed.
In connection with the previously submitted amendment regarding Non-Display Use, certain commenters raised concerns about a potential increase in the price of a particular data product being offered in the marketplace, the Bloomberg Server Application Program Interface product (“Bloomberg SAPI”). Bloomberg argued that those using the Bloomberg SAPI should not be subject to the Non-Display Use and access fees because the output of the server-based application is displayed to users whose device or user ID has been entitled by Bloomberg.
As described above, the access fee is charged to those data recipients who obtain data in a manner that enables the recipient to integrate that data into their own systems or software, regardless of whether and how the recipient chooses to use that data. And the Non-Display Use fee is applicable whenever data is used in a manner that does not make the data visibly available to a data recipient on a device. This is exactly what Bloomberg concedes the Bloomberg SAPI permits when Bloomberg states that the Bloomberg SAPI allows customers to run server-based applications on market data. For example, when Bloomberg first reported use of the Bloomberg SAPI service to the Network Administrator, Bloomberg represented that “[s]ubscribers to Bloomberg's API service typically use the application for the following purposes: Pricing engines, portfolio valuations, order management programs, risk compliance engines, and program trading applications.”
Prior to 2014, such use was subject to device fees but only because Non-Display Use fees did not exist. However, consistent with the 2014 Fee Amendments, any such use constitutes Non-Display Use according to the definitions that went into effect in 2014 and should be subject to the Non-Display Use and access fees; the
SIFMA, in its letter commenting on the previous proposed amendment, also focused on the applicability of the Non-Display Use and access fees on Bloomberg's SAPI. But SIFMA mischaracterized the Bloomberg SAPI as “the quintessential display product.”
To distinguish between the two categories of use of data, the Participants are proposing to amend the definition of “Non-Display Use” in footnote eight of the Plans' fee schedules to explicitly state that any use of data that does not make data visibly available to a data recipient on a device is a Non-Display Use. The Participants are proposing to make a parallel amendment to footnote two of the Plans' fee schedules to state that the device fee will only be applicable where the data is visibly available to the data recipient; any other data use on a device will be considered Non-Display Use.
In the 2014 Fee Amendments, the Participants recognized the relative values of non-display versus display data usage. With the proliferation of automated and algorithmic trading, non-display uses consume large amounts of data and perform a wide variety of functions. The black boxes and application programming interfaces utilized by these firms process data far more quickly, and as a result, the relative value between non-display and display data usage is pronounced. The disparity in value between non-display and display data usage led the Participants to decrease the Professional Subscriber device charges in the October 2014 Non-Display Filing while establishing the Non-Display Use fees. However, if a vendor distributes data for Non-Display Use but reports that its subscribers are subject only to device fees, such interpretation would disrupt the balance struck by the Participants in lowering the device fees while establishing the Non-Display Use fees.
The Participants believe that amending the fee schedule will create a clear understanding of when the Non-Display Use fee is applicable. The Participants believe that the proposed amendment is consistent with the 2014 Fee Amendments and therefore would clarify the change made by the 2014 Fee Amendments.
To notify data recipients of the amended definition, the Participants will be updating the CTA Market Data Non-Display Use Policy. The CTA Market Data Non-Display Use Policy describes the applicability of the Non-Display Use fee to specific uses of real-time Network A and Network B last sale information and quotation information. The CTA Market Data Non-Display Use Policy currently reflects the applicability of the Non-Display Use fee as established by the 2014 Fee Amendments. The Participants are amending this policy to include the updated definition of Non-Display Use as reflected in the Plans' amended fee schedules. The CTA Market Data Non-Display Use Policy is also being updated to specify that Redistributors that provide market data to their customers and/or data recipients for Non-Display Use of the data must submit an access request to the Administrator, and must require that the customers and data recipients of such market data complete an Exhibit A for the data use request.
The Participants are also amending footnote two and footnote eight of the Plans' fee schedules to make clear that the Participants reserve the right to make the sole determination as to whether a data recipient's use is subject to the Non-Display Use fee or the device fee and, if subject to the Non-Display Use fee, the category of such Non-Display Use, consistent with the 2014 Fee Amendments and this amendment.
To further clarify that the applicable fees that would be assessed are based on how data is used, the Participants are proposing to amend footnote ten of the Plans' fee schedules to clarify when the access fee is applicable. The access fees for Network A range from $750 to $1,750 and for Network B range from $400 to $1,250. The Participants are not proposing to modify the current access fees. Instead, the Participants are proposing to amend footnote 10 in the Plans' fee schedules to provide the access fee would be applicable if: (1) The data recipient uses the data for non-display; or (2) the data recipient receives the data in such a manner that the data can be manipulated and disseminated to one or more devices, display or otherwise, regardless of encryption or instructions from the redistribution vendor regarding who has authorized access to the data. In other words, if a subscriber has access to the data in a manner that enables that subscriber to engage in Non-Display Use of the data, the subscriber should be subject to the access fee. This amendment would make clear that the fees are based on the level of functionality made available by the vendor rather than any particular method of transmission that could potentially be modified to avoid the access fees. The Participants believe that this proposed amendment is consistent
For example, if a subscriber is receiving a stream of consolidated quotation and last sale information from a vendor, and that stream of data can then be used by the subscriber as an input into its own systems and software, then the subscriber will be subject to the access fee because it is able to make Non-Display Uses of the data. Additionally, if a subscriber is able to access a vendor's servers, choose what data to download onto its own system, and then incorporate that data into the subscriber's system and software, then the subscriber will be subject to the access fee. If, however, a subscriber is accessing a platform provided by a third-party where the data is being incorporated into and manipulated by the third-party's software, then the subscriber accessing that platform will not be subject to the access fee; instead, the third-party software provider will be subject to the access fee.
This proposed amendment is designed to make the applicability of the access fee depend upon the functionality made available by a vendor rather than get into a technical discussion of whether a form of transmission constitutes a “data feed” per se. In essence, if the data is delivered in a format that allows for non-display use, then such data delivery is tantamount to a data feed because it is a delivery format that is not controlled either in the entitlements or how the data is displayed. This approach to defining the applicability of the access fee will ensure that vendors that are providing the same level of functionality to their subscribers are not permitted to charge differing fees. As a result, the Participants believe that the revised definition will place all vendors on an equal footing so as to maintain a balanced, fair, and equitable competitive landscape.
So as to avoid any misplaced concern, the Participants reiterate that the Non-Display Use and access fees are not applicable to a Non-Professional User, and therefore the proposed amendments are not applicable to Non-Professional Users. As previously stated, the 2014 Fee Amendments established fees for Non-Display Uses of data and reduced the device fees assessed on Professional Subscribers. Therefore, regardless of whether a Non-Professional User is receiving a data product that could be subject to the Non-Display Use and access fees, a Non- Professional User's vendor would only be charged $1.00 for the data product being made available to a Non-Professional User.
Further, it is important to note the distinction between the fees charged to a brokerage platform that receives data and uses it for multiple purposes (including providing displays to its customers) versus the fees charged to display-only users who simply access that platform to view the data. Although it is true that the firms providing these types of platforms could be charged Non-Display Use and access fees because of their receipt and use of data for multiple purposes, that does not mean that the customers of such a platform would be charged the same fees. If a customer has access to uncontrolled data on a platform, then the firm running the platform would be charged an access fee. Additionally, if the platform made Non-Display Use of that data, then the firm would also be charged a Non-Display Use fee, and if the use was on behalf of both itself and its customers, it would be charged a Category 1 and a Category 2 Non-Display Use fee.
However, customers accessing that display platform only to view the data would not be charged either the Non-Display Use fee or the access fee. As such, even if the platform had 500 users, the firm providing the platform would be charged only once for its Non-Display Use on behalf of its customers, but the customers would not be individually assessed the Non-Display Use or access fees. Instead, a Professional Subscriber would be charged at most $45 per unit for accessing the firm's platform.
Not applicable.
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS, the Participants have designated the proposed clarification as establishing or changing fees and are submitting the amendment for immediate effectiveness.
See Item C above.
The amendments proposed herein do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”). Additionally, the Participants do not believe that the proposed amendments introduce terms that are unreasonably discriminatory for the purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Act. The Participants have submitted this amendment to simply clarify the applicability of the Non-Display Use and access fees established in the 2014 Fee Amendments.
As explained in the 2014 Fee Amendments, the Non-Display Use fees were established in response to the proliferation of the use of data for dark pools and other non-display trading applications. In conjunction with the establishment of Non-Display Use fees, the Participants reduced the rates for Professional Subscriber display devices in hopes of fostering the widespread availability of real-time market data. At the same time, the Non-Display Use fees allowed those who make Non-Display Uses of data to make appropriate contributions to the costs of collecting, processing, and redistributing the data. The clarification proposed herein maintains the balance struck by the Participants in reducing the device fee while establishing the Non-Display Use fees.
Additionally, the Participants believe that the amendment will have a positive effect on competition because the amendment will ensure that all vendors are classifying their customer's usage in the same manner. Following the 2014 Fee Amendments, the Participants believe that certain vendors have been mischaracterizing the usage of their customers as being subject solely to the device fees despite the fact that the data was being delivered in an uncontrolled form that enabled their customers to integrate the data into their own systems and software for Non-Display Use. This mischaracterization led to certain vendors offering their customers lower fees, to the detriment of other vendors who properly characterized their customers' usage as subject to the Non-Display Use and access fees. By eliminating the ambiguity in the Plans' fee schedules, the Participants believe that all vendors will be subjected to and subject their customers to similar fees for similar uses of data.
Without detailed information from vendors,
In connection with the previously proposed amendment, Bloomberg claimed that the proposal was an unfair burden on competition because Bloomberg is “asked to disclose all of its customers to the Exchange, including the specific method by which they consume data.” Bloomberg claimed that such a request is to obtain “confidential information under the guise of the SRO cloak,” implying that this information will be used to market exchanges' proprietary data products.
Moreover, the administrator is subject to information barriers which prevent it from disclosing confidential customer information with the exchange's business units.
As previously stated, the Participants have amended the CTA Market Data Non-Display Use Policy to implement the proposed Amendments. A copy of the changes to the Non-Display Use Policy is attached to the Amendment.
Section XII (b)(iii) of the CTA Plan provides that “[a]ny addition of any charge to . . . the charges set forth in
The Participants have executed this Amendment and represent not less than two-thirds of all of the parties to the Plan. That satisfies the Plans' Participant-approval requirements.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Participants took a number of factors into account in deciding to propose the amendments contained herein. First, the administrator works closely with vendors and customers to assess and analyze the different methods by which vendors make data available to their customers. The Participants have determined that certain vendors are providing non-display functionality via their market data products but nevertheless are reporting that their customers are only subject to the lower display device charges based on a skewed reading of the Non-Display Use and access fees.
Significantly, the Participants discussed their findings with the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee includes a representative of a broker-dealer with a substantial retail investor customer base, a broker-dealer with a substantial institutional investor customer base, an alternative trading system, a data vendor, and an investor. It also includes other industry representatives having deep market data experience. The Advisory Committee members attended and participated in meetings of the Participants in which the proposed amendment was discussed in length. During these meetings, no Advisory Committee member voiced an opposition to the proposed amendment, and some were quite vocal in their support of the need to level the competitive imbalance that currently exists as a result of the misinterpretation by certain vendors of the Non-Display and access fees.
Non-Professional Users (
Fees imposed by data vendors (which the Commission does not regulate), rather than the fees imposed under the
The Participants believe that the proposed amendment is fair and reasonable and provides for an equitable allocation of dues, fees, and other charges among vendors, data recipients and other persons. This proposed amendment is not motivated by a plan to increase fees or revenues, but rather to ensure that the 2014 Fee Amendments are applied correctly and consistently by all vendors. In a perfect world, this proposed amendment would not result in any changes to revenue because data recipients are already be subject to the 2014 Fee Amendments and they should be reporting usage correctly. However, as the Bloomberg Letter exposes, there is at least one vendor (Bloomberg) that has not been accurately reporting its Bloomberg SAPI product.
For the reasons discussed below, the Participants cannot conduct a precise analysis of what changes to revenue would accrue if this amendment were to go into effect. Indeed, to date, the administrator cannot project whether this proposed amendment would result in any revenue changes because it is not known whether, and how many, vendors are not accurately reporting usage. The Participants are therefore unable to forecast what revenue increase, if any, may result from the proposed amendment, because only those vendors utilizing a misinterpretation of the 2014 Fee Amendments have the information necessary to enable the Participants to calculate the effects of closing the perceived loophole.
Nevertheless, the Participants have done a general analysis, as described below, based upon the comments received on the prior proposal. Specifically, as demonstrated by the Bloomberg comment, we know that at least one vendor is not reporting correctly and it has refused to provide information to the administrator. However, Bloomberg acknowledges in its letter that if it correctly applied the 2014 Fee Amendments, “hundreds” of its customers would be affected.
Because Bloomberg has refused to provide any information, the Participants have no way of knowing whether 200 customers or 999 customers would be impacted, or somewhere in between. In addition, some of these customers may only need to receive the data in a display format and therefore not be impacted at all. Regardless of the actual number of Bloomberg customers, there would not be a one-to-one correlation between the number of customers receiving CTA/CQ data over the Bloomberg SAPI and the number of additional access fees and Non-Display Use fees that would be charged if Bloomberg correctly reported its customers' usage. Specifically, Bloomberg is likely currently reporting those “hundreds” of data recipients as Professional Device Users, which means the customer that Bloomberg is referring to is in fact a person as opposed to a firm. A customer firm of Bloomberg may subscribe multiple times to the Bloomberg SAPI feed for its individual users. In that case, because access fees and Non-Display Use fees are charged once at a firm level, that Bloomberg customer firm would likely be subject to a single access fee and Non-Display Use fee for multiple Bloomberg SAPI connections. Moreover, a Bloomberg firm customer that subscribes to the Bloomberg SAPI may already be paying an access fee and Non-Display Use fees, in which case, correctly reporting the Bloomberg SAPI as a data feed would not result in any additional fees to such customer. Additionally, the Participants believe that many data users that are currently taking high-priced vendor products such as Bloomberg's SAPI, providing what is for those users unnecessary functionality, may switch to other products so as to avoid having to pay any additional charges they may face once the non-display functionality is accurately reported. Any such switch will reduce any potential revenue increase resulting from the clarification. In sum, although the Participants are aware of certain vendors inaccurately reporting data usage, they do not believe that there has been a widespread misinterpretation of the 2014 Fee Amendments. Accordingly, the Participants generally do not believe that this proposed amendment would result in a material increase in revenue.
More importantly, however, the Participants are concerned about the possible consequences of failing to close this perceived loophole. In particular, the level of access provided by the misreported products is roughly equivalent to that provided by the products offered by vendors reporting accurately. Yet, those vendor's customers are not paying what other vendor's customers pay for the similar services. In order to maintain the competitive balance, it is likely that, absent the clarification, the market vendors that are now accurately reporting may feel compelled to take advantage of this perceived loophole to reduce their competitors' untoward advantage, and, if they do so, this may reduce the market data revenue pool available to the Participants. The failure to close this perceived loophole therefore could result in substantial disruptions to the market data funding mechanism.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Commission seeks comment on the Amendments. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on, among other things: (1) Whether the impact of the 2014 CTA/CQ Fee Amendments on
• 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.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2017-04 and should be submitted on or before December 11, 2017.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The original filing and notice included the following language designed to direct Participants to look to the regular fee schedule: “but the data may be fee liable under the regular fee schedule.”
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS,
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on the Amendment. Set forth in Sections I and II is the statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendments, along with the information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act, prepared and submitted by the Participants to the Commission.
Derived data consists of pricing data or other information that is created in whole or part from consolidated quotation or last sale information and:
• Cannot be reverse-engineered to recreate the information, or
• Cannot be used to create other data that is recognized by NASDAQ to be a reasonable facsimile for the consolidated quotation or last sale information.
Historically, derived data that contains price data and is based upon a single security symbol is fee liable at the underlying product rates. If derived real-time volume data for a single security does not also include price data, however, it is not fee liable. Additionally, derived data that contains price and/or volume data based upon multiple security symbols is not fee liable. This approach as to when derived data may be considered fee liable is due to the similarity between single security derived data containing price data and the consolidated quotation or last sale information.
The application of the above-described derived data policy has been in place since at least 2007.
In October 2014, the Participants amended the Plan's fee schedule to establish fees for Non-Display Uses and to reduce the Subscriber fees assessed on Professional Subscribers.
Although this language was a part of the transmittal letter and notice for the October 2014 amendments, the language was inadvertently left out of the text of the Plan in that amendment. Currently, Exhibit 2 of the Plan states that “Non-Display Use does not apply to the creation and use of derived data.” The Participants are proposing to correct this inadvertent clerical omission to include in the Plan language the detail contained in the October 2014 submission. Therefore, the Participants are proposing to amend the text of the Plan's fee schedule to insert the Plan's historical derived data policy that derived data will be subject to the underlying products fee schedule. As such, the use of data will be excepted from the Non-Display fees when such data is used to create derived data and such derived data is used for the purpose of solely displaying the derived data.
The Participants believe that this proposed change will align the October 2014 submission and text of the Plan and maintain the historical approach of the fee liability of derived data. As such, instances where a data recipient is using the data in Non-Display to create derived data, such as Indications of Interest or Volume-Weighted Average Prices, for the purpose of solely displaying such data, then the Non-Display fee schedule does not apply. Such use may be fee liable for the Subscriber fees, and other fees such as Access and/or Redistributor fees, if applicable.
Not applicable.
Because the Participants have designated the Amendment as one establishing or changing fee or other charge collected on behalf of the Participants in connection with access to, or use of, any facility contemplated by the Nasdaq/UTP Plan,
The Participants assert that the Amendment does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”). Additionally, the Participants do not believe that the proposed amendment introduces terms that are unreasonably discriminatory for the purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Act. The Participants have submitted this amendment to simply correct an inadvertent omission in the Plan language to correspond to language previously contained in a submission to the Commission. This amendment simply aligns the text of the Plan with the language contained in the October 2014 submission and the longstanding practice of the Plan's application of fees to derived data.
Furthermore, the Participants believe that this longstanding derived data policy is reasonable in order to protect the Plan's proprietary rights over consolidated quotation and last sale information. As previously stated, derived data that contains price data and is based upon a single security symbol is fee liable at the underlying product rates. Derived data that contains volume data but no price data and derived data that is based upon multiple security symbols is not currently fee liable. Such an approach is logical given the similarity between derived data that contains price data and is based upon a single security symbol to the consolidated quotation and last sale information disseminated by the Plan.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Participants believe that the amendment proposed herein is fair and reasonable since it corrects an inadvertent omission in order to ensure the continued implementation of the derived data policy that has been in place for at least ten years.
The longstanding derived data policy is reasonable in order to protect the Plan's proprietary rights over consolidated quotation and last sale information. As previously stated, derived data that contains price data and is based upon a single security symbol is fee liable at the underlying product rates. Derived data that contains volume data but no price data and derived data that is based upon multiple security symbols is not currently fee liable. Such an approach is logical given the similarity between derived data that contains price data and is based upon a single security symbol to the consolidated quotation and last sale information disseminated by the Plans.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Commission seeks comments on the Amendment. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendment 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.
All submissions should refer to File Number File No. S7-24-89. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Web site (
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
LCH SA is filing the new fee grid in connection with the proposed extension of the CDSClear service to the clearing of options on index credit default swaps (“CDS Options”). The text of the proposed rule change has been annexed as Exhibit 5.
Two separate proposed rule changes have been submitted concurrently (SR-
In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA 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 rule change is to establish the applicable fee grid in connection with the proposed extension of the CDSClear service to the clearing of CDS Options.
The proposed rule change introduces a fixed onboarding fee payable by every General and Select member that will join the new clearing service. The onboarding fee will be waived for any member whose onboarding for such clearing service is duly confirmed by LCH SA on or before 31st March 2018.
In addition to the fixed onboarding fee, the clearing fees are due by each General Member, Select Member or Client in accordance with the amount, currency and volume specified in the fee grid attached in Exhibit 5. Similar to the current Index & Single Names fee grid for General Membership under the Introductory tariff, a floor and a cap on clearing fees have been implemented for General Members opting for the CDS Options clearing service. Select Members opting for the CDS Options clearing service are only subject to capped fees as Select Membership is designed primarily for price takers with a smaller portfolio and a fixed cost (to which a floor amounts to) would deter them from clearing CDS Options.
All members and clients will benefit from a clearing fee holiday until 31st December 2017.
LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change in connection with the clearing of CDS Options is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the regulations thereunder, including the standards under Rule 17Ad-22.
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges.
As noted above, the proposed fee grid will apply equally to all General members, Select Members and clients that will voluntary participate in this new CDS Clearing Service and LCH SA believes that it is reasonable and appropriate.
As Select Members have fewer obligations than General Members, variable clearing fees for CDS Options are higher for Select Members than for General Members (similarly to the current Index & Single Names variable fee grid). Clients have no obligation towards the CCP, and hence variable clearing fees for CDS Options are set higher for them than for Members (similarly to the current Index & Single Names variable fee grid). As for Select Members, a fixed cost (floor) being applied to clients could deter them from choosing to clear CDS Options.
Finally, the purpose of the cap is to incentivize participants to provide liquidity into the CDS Options clearing service. Unlike General Members, as clients are not meant to provide such liquidity, LCH SA does not offer capped clearing fees for clients.
LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Credit Index Options contracts will be available to all LCH SA CDSClear participants for clearing. The clearing of CDS Options contracts by LCH SA CDSClear does not preclude the offering of these financial instruments for clearing by other market participants.
The proposed rule change does not adversely affect the ability of such Clearing Members or other market participants generally to engage in cleared transactions or to access clearing services. Therefore, LCH SA does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written comments received by LCH SA.
Subject to any regulatory review or approval process duly completed, the foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-008. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-008 and should be submitted on or before December 11, 2017.
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 (“Exchange Act”),
The proposed rule change was designed to effect an acquisition of CHX Holdings, Inc. by North America Casin Holdings, Inc., which would be owned by a consortium of investors (“upstream investors”). On August 9, 2017, the Division of Trading and Markets, for the Commission pursuant to delegated authority,
The Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. is filing this Partial Amendment no. 2 to SR-CHX-2016-20, a proposed rule change related to a proposed transaction (“Proposed Transaction”) involving, among others, the Exchange's direct parent company, CHX Holdings, Inc. (“CHX Holdings”), and North America Casin Holdings, Inc. (“NA Casin Holdings”), which was originally filed on December 2, 2016 (“Initial Filing”) and modified by Partial Amendment No. 1 on August 7, 2017. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
The Exchange now submits this Partial Amendment No. 2 to amend the Initial Filing, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, as described below.
In the Initial Filing,
•
•
Furthermore, the Exchange also stated the following:
• The only Related Persons
• There are no other Related Persons among the Indirect Upstream Owners.
• None of the Indirect Upstream Owners directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, a governmental entity or any political subdivision thereof.
Since the Approval Order was stayed on August 9, 2017, three of the prospective Indirect Upstream Owners (
The
The Exchange notes that the modified NACH capitalization table provides that 71% of the voting shares of NA Casin Holdings will be owned by U.S. citizens and, due to the proposed Voting Limitations,
Attached to the Partial Amendment No. 1 were Investor Certificates and Investor Statements for all of the then current Indirect Upstream Owners.
This Partial Amendment No. 2 also effects the following changes:
• Amends the proposed NA Casin Certificate to:
• Amends the Raptor and Saliba Put Agreements to reflect the increased ownership levels for Raptor and Saliba described above and other changes that would not render the parties to the agreements Related Persons.
• Provide a new put agreement for Penserra (new
• Other non-substantive amendments.
As such, the Exchange amends the Initial Filing, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, as follows:
1. Amend pages 3 through 5 of the Initial Filing (pages 64 and 65 of the
Replace the second paragraph on page 3 that carries over to pages 4 and 5 (second paragraph on page 64 that carries over to page 65 of the
The text of the proposed Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of CHX Holdings (“CHX Holdings Certificate”) is attached as Exhibit 5A.
2. Amend page 7 of the Initial Filing (pages 67 and 68 of the
Replace the first sentence of the first paragraph on page 7 (first sentence of the third full paragraph on page 67 that carries over to page 68 of the
Pursuant to the terms of a Merger Agreement dated February 4, 2016, as amended on February 3, 2017 and August 29, 2017 (“Merger Agreement”), by and among NA Casin Holdings, Merger Sub, Chongqing Casin Enterprise Group Co., LTD. (“Chongqing Casin”), a limited company organized under the laws of the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), Richard G. Pane solely in his capacity as the Stockholders Representative thereunder, and CHX Holdings, Merger Sub will merge into CHX Holdings,
3. Amend pages 8 through 10 of the Initial Filing (pages 69 through 71 of the
Replace all text starting with the first bullet on page 8 through the first paragraph on page 10 (first bullet on page 69 through the first paragraph that begins on page 70 that carries over the page 71 of the
• NA Casin Group, a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and wholly-owned by Chongqing Casin—29%
•
The Exchange submits the following regarding the Indirect Upstream Owners:
• The only Related Persons
• There are no other Related Persons among the Indirect Upstream Owners.
• None of the Indirect Upstream Owners directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, a governmental entity or any political subdivision thereof.
As Related Persons, NA Casin Group and Castle YAC would own a combined 40% voting interest in NA Casin Holdings, which is within the proposed 40% Concentration Limitation of NA Casin Holdings and CHX Holdings described below.
4. Amend pages 11 and 12 of the Initial Filing (pages 72 and 73 of the
Replace the first paragraph that begins on page 11 that carries over to page 12 (the first paragraph that begins on page 72 that carries over to page 73 of the
The Exchange further notes that execution of the Saliba Put Agreement, the Raptor Put Agreement or the Penserra Put Agreement would not result in any Indirect Upstream Owners becoming Related Persons for the purposes of compliance with the proposed Ownership and Voting Limitations. Specifically, the Saliba Put Agreement grants Saliba a put option (“Saliba Put Option”) that, if exercised by Saliba, would compel NA Casin Holdings (and not another Indirect Upstream Owner) to purchase, or arrange for an unspecified third-party to purchase, a specified amount of Saliba's equity interest in NA Casin Holdings. Similarly, the Raptor Put Agreement grants Raptor a put option (“Raptor Put Option”) that, if exercised by Raptor, would compel NA Casin Holdings (and not another Indirect Upstream Owner) to purchase, or arrange for an unspecified third-party to purchase, a specified amount of Raptor's equity interest in NA Casin Holdings. Also, the Penserra Put Agreement grants Penserra a put option (“Penserra Put Option”) that, if exercised by Penserra, would compel NA Casin Holdings (and not another Indirect Upstream Owner) to purchase, or arrange for an unspecified third-party to purchase, a specified amount of Penserra's equity interest in NA Casin Holdings. Accordingly, the Exchange submits
Also, replace all text under footnote 25 on page 12 (page 73 of the
5. Amend page 24 of the Initial Filing (page 86 of the
Within the first paragraph following the bullet, in the sentence immediately following footnote 74 (first sentence on page 86 of the
6. Amend page 31 of the Initial Filing (page 92 of the
Within the first full sentence (second sentence within the first paragraph beginning on page 92 of the
7. Amend page 45 of the Initial Filing (page 107 of the
Under footnote 102, replace reference to “NA Casin Bylaws” with “NA Casin Holdings Bylaws.”
8. Amend page 52 of the Initial Filing (page 114 of the
Immediate above the subtitle “Statutory Basis,” insert the following new text:
Sections (2)-(3) of Article VIII of the proposed NA Casin Holdings Certificate provides for a super-majority vote requirement for certain corporate actions. Specifically, Section (2) provides that in addition to any affirmative vote required by applicable law or this Certificate of Incorporation: (a) Any merger or consolidation of the Corporation or any Subsidiary with any or any other corporation or other entity; (b) any sale, lease, exchange, mortgage, pledge, transfer or other disposition (in one transaction or a series of transactions) to or with any other corporation or other entity, of all or substantially all of the assets of the Corporation or any Subsidiary; (c) the issuance or transfer by the Corporation or any Subsidiary (in one transaction or a series of transactions) of any securities of the Corporation or any Subsidiary that would result in: (i) Any an individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, governmental or regulatory body, unincorporated organization, trust, association or other entity (each a “Person”) owning a majority of the shares of Common Stock of the Corporation, or (ii) any Person other than a Subsidiary or the Corporation, owning a majority of the shares of voting stock of any Subsidiary; (d) the adoption of any plan or proposal for the liquidation or dissolution of the Corporation that is not the result of a transaction contemplated by Sections 2(a), 2(b) or 2(c) of this Article VIII; (e) any reclassification of securities (including any reverse stock split), recapitalization of the Corporation or any merger or consolidation of the Corporation with any of its Subsidiaries or any other transaction which has the effect, directly or indirectly, of increasing the proportionate share of the outstanding shares of any class of equity or convertible securities of the Corporation or any Subsidiary which are directly or indirectly owned by any Person with the result that such Person becomes the holder of a majority of the shares of Common Stock of the Corporation; or (f) any agreement, contract or other arrangement providing for any one or more of the actions specified in the foregoing (a) to (e); shall require, except as otherwise prohibited by applicable law, the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 85% of the then outstanding voting shares entitled to be cast on such matter. Moreover, such affirmative vote shall be required notwithstanding the fact that no vote may be required, or that a lesser percentage may be permitted, by applicable law. Section (3) provides that as used in this Article VIII, “Subsidiary” means any corporation or other Person of which securities or other ownership interests having ordinary voting power to elect a majority of the board of directors or other persons performing similar functions are at any time directly or indirectly owned by the Corporation.
The proposed super-majority vote requirement is designed to ensure that any significant change to the assets or ownership of NA Casin Holdings or subsidiaries, including the Exchange, be agreed upon by a super-majority of the Indirect Upstream Owners. As a result, this will serve to protect the investments of the Indirect Upstream Owners, as well as to ensure that the Exchange's ownership and assets remain reliable and stable, which further enables the Exchange to meet its self-regulatory obligations. The Exchange notes that the super-majority vote requirement would apply to all NACH stockholders equally and, as such, no one stockholder's voting power would be enhanced or diminished relative to the other stockholders by the requirement.
9. Amend page 53 of the Initial Filing (page 116 of the
Replace the last sentence within the first full paragraph (first full sentence on page 116 of the
Specifically, the Exchange submits that the CHX Rules, the relevant governing documents of CHX and its upstream affiliates, CHX Holdings and NA Casin Holdings, the NACH Stockholders' Agreement, the Saliba Put Agreement, the Raptor Put Agreement and the Penserra Put Agreement, as proposed to be adopted or amended, to permit the Transaction, are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
10. Amend page 55 of the Initial Filing (page 118 of the
Immediately after the first full paragraph (immediately after the first paragraph on page 118 that carries over from page 117 of the
Moreover, the proposed super-majority vote requirement under Section (2) of Article IX of the proposed NA Casin Holdings Certificate is designed to ensure that any significant change to the assets or ownership of NA Casin Holdings or subsidiaries, including the Exchange, be agreed upon by a super-majority of the Indirect Upstream Owners. This will serve to ensure that the Exchange's ownership and assets remain reliable and stable, which further enables the Exchange to meet its self-regulatory obligations under Section 6 of the Act.
11. Amend page 57 of the Initial Filing (page 120 of the
Replace the first sentence of the first paragraph that begins on page 57 (the first sentence of the first full paragraph on page 120 of the
In addition, the proposed NACH Stockholders' Agreement, Saliba Put Agreement, Raptor Put Agreement and Penserra Put Agreement includes provisions that provide reasonable financial protections to the Indirect Upstream Owners so as to facilitate consummation of the Transaction without violating the proposed Ownership and Voting Limitations.
12. Amend page 62 of the Initial Filing:
Immediately below the text “Exhibit 5K: Text of Proposed Raptor Put Agreement,” insert the following:
Exhibit 5L: Text of Proposed Penserra Put Agreement
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Exchange 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.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at Rule 7018 to change the amounts of certain credits for entering orders that access liquidity in the Exchange's Equities System.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purposes of the proposed rule changes are to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at Rule 7018 to: (1) increase from $0.0016 to $0.0017 its per share executed credit for orders that access liquidity (excluding orders with Midpoint pegging and excluding orders that receive price improvement and execute against an order with a Non-displayed price) entered by members that accesses liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.10% of total Consolidated Volume during a month; and (2) reduce its credit for entering an order that accesses liquidity in the Exchange's Equities System for “all other orders,”
The Exchange operates on the “taker-maker” model, whereby it pays credits to members that take liquidity and charges fees to members that provide liquidity. Currently, the Exchange offers five different credits for orders that access liquidity on the Exchange. First, the Exchange pays a credit of $0.0016 per share executed for an order that accesses liquidity (excluding orders with Midpoint pegging and excluding orders that receive price improvement and execute against an order with a Non-displayed price) entered by a member that accesses liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.10% of total Consolidated Volume during a month. Second, the Exchange pays a credit of $0.0015 per share executed to an order that accesses liquidity (excluding orders with Midpoint pegging and excluding orders that receive price improvement and execute against an order with a Non-displayed price) entered by a member that accesses liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.05% of total Consolidated Volume during [sic] month. Third, the Exchange pays a credit of $0.0000 per share executed for an order that receives price improvement and executes against an order with a Non-displayed price. Fourth, the Exchange pays a credit of $0.0000 per share executed for an order with Midpoint pegging that removes liquidity. Finally, the Exchange pays a credit of $0.0003 per share executed for “all other orders.”
The Exchange now proposes to increase from $0.0016 to $0.0017 its (per share executed) credit for orders that access liquidity (excluding orders with Midpoint pegging and excluding orders that receive price improvement and execute against an order with a Non-
The Exchange is proposing the first of these changes to provide a greater incentive to member firms to remove liquidity from the Exchange.
The Exchange is proposing the second of these changes because it believes that a $0.0001 credit is more closely aligned to the requirements necessary to qualify for that credit and the behavior that the credit is designed to incentivize. The Exchange notes that, unlike other credits the Exchange offers for accessing liquidity, a member does not have to meet any volume requirements in order to qualify for this credit. In contrast, the Exchange pays a credit of $0.0000 per share executed for an order that receives price improvement and executes against an order with a Non-displayed price, and for an order with Midpoint pegging that removes liquidity. In comparison to these other credits and their attendant requirements, and given that the Exchange is limited in the amount of credits that it provides to members, the Exchange believes the new credit amount is appropriate.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to increase from $0.0016 to $0.0017 its (per share executed) credit for orders that access liquidity (excluding orders with Midpoint pegging and excluding orders that receive price improvement and execute against an order with Midpoint pegging [sic]) entered by members that access liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.10% of total Consolidated Volume during a month. The Exchange must, from time to time, assess the effectiveness of its credits in achieving their intended objectives and adjust the levels of such credits based on the Exchange's observations of market participant behavior. In this instance, the Exchange determined that the level of the credit should be increased to provide a stronger incentive to market participants to improve the market. The Exchange believes that the proposed credit increase is equitable and is not unfairly discriminatory it [sic] will apply to all member firms that achieve the minimum level of Consolidated Volume required by the tier.
The Exchange believes that reducing the credit for “all other orders” from $0.0003 to $0.0001 is reasonable because the amount of the new credit is more closely aligned to the requirements necessary to qualify for the credit and the behavior that it is designed to incentivize, especially given that the Exchange is limited in the amount of credits that it provides to members. Unlike other credits the Exchange offers for accessing liquidity, a member does not have to meet any volume requirements in order to qualify for this credit. While the Exchange does presently pay credits of $0.0015 and $0.0016 per share executed for accessing liquidity, a member must also meet also meet [sic] a volume threshold of accessing liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.05% or 0.10% of total Consolidated Volume during a month, respectively. In contrast, the Exchange pays a credit of $0.0000 for an order that receives price improvement and executes against an order with a Non-displayed price, and for an order with Midpoint pegging that removes liquidity. The Exchange believes that the new credit amount is more closely aligned to the requirements for qualifying for that credit, especially in comparison to the other credits offered by the Exchange and their attendant requirements.
The Exchange believes that the second proposed change is equitably allocated among members, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination. BX notes that participation on the Exchange, and eligibility for this credit, is voluntary, and that the Exchange continues to offer other credits for which members may attempt to qualify instead of the proposed credit. Additionally, the proposed change to the credit amount applies to all members that otherwise qualify for the credit.
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. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the changes to credits do not impose a burden on competition because participation in the Exchange is optional and is the subject of competition from other exchanges. The proposed changes to the credits are reflective of the Exchange's overall efforts to provide greater incentives to market participants in the form of credits for market participation it believes needs improvement to the benefit of all participants. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that any of the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. Moreover, because there are numerous competitive alternatives to the use of the Exchange, it is likely that BX will lose market share as a result of the changes if they are unattractive to market participants.
Accordingly, BX does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
On August 22, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On November 8, 2017, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-BatsBZX-2017-56).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Section VIII (Nasdaq PSX Fees) of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule to decrease both the amount of and the Consolidated Volume necessary to qualify for the credit that the Exchange pays to member organizations for displayed quotes and orders that provide liquidity throughout the Nasdaq PSX System.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Chapter VIII of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule to decrease both the amount of and the Consolidated Volume necessary to qualify for the credit that the Exchange pays to member organizations for displayed quotes and orders that provide liquidity throughout the Nasdaq PSX System. Presently, the Exchange provides a credit of $0.0031 per share executed for Quotes/Orders entered by a member organization that provides and accesses 0.25% or more of Consolidated Volume during the month. The Exchange is proposing to decrease the amount of this credit from $0.0031 to $0.0030 while also decreasing the level of monthly Consolidated Volume that is required of a member organization to qualify for the credit from 0.25% to 0.20%.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed $0.0030 per share executed credit provided to a member organization for displayed quotes and orders remains competitive with the fees of other exchanges. For example, Rule 7018(a)(1) of the Rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market provide for a credit of up to $0.00305 per share executed for displayed quotes and orders. Moreover, the effect of the proposed decrease in this credit is offset, in part, by a corresponding decrease in the Consolidated Volume threshold that is applicable to the credit. The net effect of the changes, in other words, will be to increase the universe of member organizations that qualify for the credit while decreasing the size of the credit.
Meanwhile, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply to all member organizations, any of which may provide the level of Consolidated Volume required to qualify for the credit.
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. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the proposed changes to the credits available to member organizations for displayed quotes and orders do not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. The Exchange has determined that the existing credit level and corresponding Consolidated Volume threshold has not achieved the desired participation on the Exchange. Consequently, the Exchange is decreasing to 0.20% the Consolidated Volume threshold required to receive the credit while also decreasing the amount of the credit from $0.0031 to $0.0030 per share executed credit [sic]. In sum, the Exchange intends to make it easier for member organizations to receive a credit in an effort to increase participation on the Exchange.
If the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. The Exchange notes that competing order execution venues are free to increase their credits, or decrease qualification criteria required to receive credits, in reaction to the proposed changes. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
Title: Defense Trade Advisory Group; Notice of Open Meeting.
The Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG) originally scheduled an open session on Thursday, December 7, 2017 (See
The following agenda topics will be discussed and final reports presented: (1) One-Form electronic filing, review and discuss recommendations for making electronic filing more cost-effective and efficient for industry; (2) Identify key areas of concern with the proposed definition for defense services in 80 FR 31525 (June 3, 2015); (3) Review and provide feedback in accurately and effectively defining “manufacturing” and distinguishing it from other related activities like assembly, integration, installment and various services; and (4) Examine and discuss the current rules regarding the release of technical data to foreign dual-nationals and identify alternative options that sufficiently facilitate risk assessment and risk mitigation.
Members of the public may attend this open session and will be permitted to participate in the discussion in accordance with the Chair's instructions. Members of the public may, if they wish, submit a brief statement to the committee in writing.
As seating is limited to 125 persons, each member of the public or DTAG member that wishes to attend this plenary session should provide: his/her name and contact information such as email address and/or phone number and any request for reasonable accommodation to the DTAG Alternate Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Anthony Dearth, via email at
Ms. Glennis Gross-Peyton, PM/DDTC, SA-1, 12th Floor, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-0112; telephone (202) 663-2862; FAX (202) 261-8199; or email
The Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation will meet on March 5, June 4, September 10, and December 10, 2018, in open session to discuss unclassified matters concerning declassification and transfer of Department of State records to the National Archives and Records Administration and the status of the
The Committee will meet in open session from 11:00 a.m. until noon in SA-4D Conference Room, Department of State, 2300 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20372 (Potomac Navy Hill Annex), on all four dates. RSVP should be sent as directed below:
• March 5, not later than February 28, 2018. Requests for reasonable accommodation should be made by February 20, 2018.
• June 4, not later than May 30, 2018. Requests for reasonable accommodation should be made by May 21, 2018.
• September 10, not later than September 5, 2018. Requests for reasonable accommodation should be made by August 27, 2018.
• December 10, not later than December 5, 2018. Requests for reasonable accommodation should be made by November 26, 2018.
Personal data is requested pursuant to Public Law 99-399 (Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), as amended; Public Law 107-56 (USA PATRIOT Act); and Executive Order 13356. The purpose of the collection is to validate the identity of individuals who enter Department facilities. The data will be entered into the Visitor Access Control System (VACS-D) database. Please see the Security Records System of Records Notice (State-36) at
Questions concerning the meeting should be directed to Dr. Stephen P. Randolph, Executive Secretary, Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, Department of State, Office of the Historian, Washington, DC 20372, telephone (202) 955-0215, (email
Note that requests for reasonable accommodation received after the dates indicated in this notice will be considered, but might not be possible to fulfill.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before December 11, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0604 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jake Troutman (202) 683-7788, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before December 11, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2013-0015 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mark Forseth, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before December 11, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0540 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jake Troutman (202) 683-7788, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); DOT; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by the USACE.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to announce action taken by the USACE that are final within the meaning of the United States Code. The action relates to the construction of the South Mountain Freeway/Loop 202 Project (Project) in Maricopa County, in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, in the State of Arizona. The USACE granted a Department of the Army permit, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, authorizing the Arizona Department of Transportation (AZDOT) to discharge dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States at specified locations related to the Project.
By this notice the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
Notice is hereby given that USACE has taken final agency action by issuing certain approval related to the Project. The action related the Project, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Department of the Army Permit and related documents in the USACE administrative record for the permit action. Interested parties may contact the USACE Los Angeles District Regulatory Division Office for more information on the USACE's permit decision. Contact information for the appropriate USACE representative is above.
This notice applies to all claims seeking judicial review of the Department of the Army permit, and all laws under which such action was taken, including, but not limited to the National Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 4321-4375], the Clean Water Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. 1251-1388]. This notice does not, however, alter or extend the limitations period for challenges of Project decisions subject to the Federal Highway Administration notice regarding the Project published in the
The Project and actions that are the subject of this notice are:
The USACE decision and permit No. SPL-2202-00055 are available by contacting USACE at the address provided above, and can be viewed and downloaded from
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which the final action was taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for 33 iron and steel components of Georgia Ports Authority-procured Rail Mounted Gantry (RMG) cranes that will increase intermodal capacity at the Garden City Terminal in Garden City, Georgia. These iron and steel components are not manufactured (from melting to coating) in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality.
The effective date of the waiver is November 21, 2017.
For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Gerald Yakowenko, FHWA Office of Program Administration, (202) 366-1562, or via email at
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the
The FHWA's Buy America policy in 23 CFR 635.410 requires a domestic manufacturing process for any steel or iron products (including protective coatings) that are permanently incorporated in a Federal-aid construction project. The regulation also provides for a waiver of the Buy America requirements when satisfactory quality domestic steel and iron products are not sufficiently available (non-availability). This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for twenty-eight iron and steel components of eight RMG cranes that will be procured by the Georgia Ports Authority to increase intermodal capacity at the Garden City Terminal in Garden City, Georgia due to non-availability.
In accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31), FHWA published a notice seeking comments on whether a waiver is appropriate on its Web site,
The Georgia Ports Authority commissioned an independent study demonstrating that RMG cranes could not be produced domestically. These findings are consistent with past studies demonstrating that no RMG cranes using 100 percent domestic steel and iron are reasonably available. Based on vendor responses to the port's procurement solicitation, some crane components could be manufactured in the U.S. However, the following 33 items are not manufactured in the U.S. in manner that the iron and steel complies with FHWA's Buy America requirements: gantry motor, gantry motor brake, gantry gearbox couplings, gantry gearbox, gantry wheel, gantry guide and thrust roller assembly, gantry rail brake hydraulic pump, gantry rail brake hydraulic solenoid, gantry oleo bumper, trolley motor, trolley motor brake, trolley motor gearbox coupling, trolley motor gearbox, trolley wheel, trolley guide thrust roller assembly, trolley oleo bumper, hoist motor, hoist motor gearbox coupling, hoist gearbox, hoist gearbox hoist drum coupling, hoist brake thruster, hoist sheave, hoist headblock sheave, slew motor, slew motor brake, slew motor gearbox coupling, slew gearbox, gantry cable rear motor, gantry cable reel gearbox, gantry cable reel brake assembly, gantry cable reel slip ring assembly, load cell pin, and main power transformer. Based on all the information available to the agency, FHWA concludes that there are no domestic manufacturers for these 33 components of RMG cranes for use by the Georgia Ports Authority. Accordingly, the FHWA waives the Buy America requirements for these 33 components. This limited waiver does not include steel and iron components of the RMG cranes that are available with steel and iron produced domestically, including the steel gantry structure.
This project will be completed under a Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies, Significant Freight, and Highway Projects FY 2016 grant award (commonly referred to as FASTLANE grants).
In accordance with the provisions of section 117 of the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-244, 122 Stat. 1572), FHWA is providing this notice as its finding that a waiver of Buy America requirements is appropriate. The FHWA invites public comment on this finding for an additional 15 days following the effective date of the finding. Comments may be submitted to FHWA's Web site via the link provided to the waiver page noted above.
23 U.S.C. 313; Pub. L. 110-161, 23 CFR 635.410
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice announces a final environmental action taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a project in Perth Amboy and South Amboy, Middlesex County, New Jersey. The purpose of this notice is to announce publicly the environmental decision by FTA on the subject project and to activate the limitation on any claims that may challenge this final environmental action.
By this notice, FTA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to Section 139(l) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). A claim seeking judicial review of FTA actions announced herein for the listed public transportation project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before April 19, 2018.
Nancy-Ellen Zusman, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, (312) 353-2577 or Alan Tabachnick, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Environmental Programs, (202) 366-8541. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Notice is hereby given that FTA has taken final agency action by issuing a certain approval for the public transportation project listed below. The action on the project, as well as the laws under which such action was taken, is described in the documentation issued in connection with the project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in other documents in the FTA administrative record for the project. Interested parties may contact either the project sponsor or the FTA Regional Office for more information. Contact information for FTA's Regional Offices may be found at
This notice applies to all FTA decisions on the listed project as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such action was taken, including, but not limited to, NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321-4375], Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 470f], and the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q]. This notice does not, however, alter or extend the limitation period for challenges of project decisions subject to previous notices published in the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8609, Low-Income Housing Credit Allocation and Certification, and Form 8609-A, Annual Statement for Low-Income Housing Credit.
Written comments should be received on or before January 19, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Taquesha Cain, at (202) 317-8979 Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is updating the monetary reimbursement rates for caskets and urns purchased for the interment in a VA national cemetery or a VA-funded state or tribal veterans' cemetery of Veterans who die with no known next of kin and where there are insufficient resources for furnishing a burial container. The purpose of this notice is to notify interested parties of the rates that will apply to reimbursement claims that occur during calendar year (CY) 2018.
Eric Axelbank, Budget Formulation Division, National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420. Telephone: (202) 632-7236 (this is not a toll-free number).
Section 2306(f) of title 38, U.S.C., authorizes VA National Cemetery Administration (NCA) to furnish a casket or urn for interment in a VA national cemetery or a VA-funded state or tribal veterans' cemetery of the unclaimed remains of Veterans for whom VA cannot identify a next of kin and determines that sufficient financial resources for the furnishing of a casket or urn for burial are not available. VA implemented regulations to administer this authority as a reimbursement benefit in section 38.628 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations.
Public Law 114-273 extended VA's authority to furnish a casket or urn for interment of the unclaimed remains of Veterans for whom VA cannot identify a next of kin and determines that sufficient financial resources for the furnishing of a casket or urn for burial are not available when those remains are to be buried in a VA national cemetery or a VA-funded state or tribal veterans' cemetery. The reimbursement amounts shown in this notice are applicable to those interments.
Reimbursement for a claim received in any CY will not exceed the average cost of a 20-gauge metal casket or a durable plastic urn during the fiscal year (FY) preceding the CY of the claim. Average costs are determined by market analysis for 20-gauge metal caskets, designed to contain human remains, with a gasketed seal, and external rails or handles. The same analysis is completed for durable plastic urns, designed to contain human remains, which include a secure closure to contain the cremated remains.
Using this method of computation, in FY 2017, the average costs for caskets were determined to be $2,131 and $169 for urns. Accordingly, the reimbursement rates payable for qualifying interments occurring during CY 2018 are $2,131 for caskets and $169 for urns.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on November 14, 2017, for publication.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
As required by section 3132(b) (4) of title 5, United States Code, this gives notice of all positions in the Senior Executive Service (SES) that were career reserved during calendar year 2016.
Phyllis Proctor, Senior Executive Resources Services, Senior Executive Services and Performance Management, Employee Services, 202-606-2246.
Below is a list of titles of SES positions that were career reserved at any time during calendar year 2016, regardless of whether those positions were still career reserved as of December 31, 2016. Section 3132(b) (4) of title 5, United States Code, requires that the head of each agency publish such lists by March 1 of the following year. The Office of Personnel Management is publishing a consolidated list for all agencies.
5 U.S.C. 3132.
| 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 |