Page Range | 55923-56149 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 56044 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
82 FR 56011 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Annual State Application Under Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act | |
82 FR 56011 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; State and Local Educational Agency Record and Reporting Requirements Under Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act | |
82 FR 56089 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
82 FR 56064 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
82 FR 56006 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings | |
82 FR 55985 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 56015 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Tennessee | |
82 FR 56018 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, Commonwealth of Kentucky | |
82 FR 55966 - Approval of Arizona Air Plan Revisions, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality | |
82 FR 56016 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active Ingredients | |
82 FR 56116 - Agency Information Collection Activity; Notice of Reinstatement To Collect Information: Barrier Failure Reporting in Oil and Gas Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf | |
82 FR 56017 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities | |
82 FR 56114 - Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements: Agency Information Collection Activity | |
82 FR 55953 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch in the Bering Sea Subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
82 FR 56060 - Omaha Public Power District; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1 | |
82 FR 56010 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Part 225 and 252 Provision on Prohibition of Foreign Commercial Satellite Services From Certain Foreign Entities-Representations | |
82 FR 55952 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2017 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Golden Tilefish Hook-and-Line Component | |
82 FR 56009 - Notice of Intent To Prepare An Environmental Impact Statement And Environmental Impact Report for the Edwards Air Force Base Solar Enhanced Use Lease Project | |
82 FR 56009 - U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 56024 - Information Collection; OMB Circular A-119 | |
82 FR 55954 - Regulatory Improvements for Power Reactors Transitioning to Decommissioning | |
82 FR 55988 - Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of Foreign Government Subsidies on Articles of Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty | |
82 FR 56042 - Meeting of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 56042 - Findings of Research Misconduct | |
82 FR 56100 - Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) Designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism (SST) | |
82 FR 56050 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From China, India, Korea, and Taiwan; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations | |
82 FR 56007 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions | |
82 FR 56008 - Procurement List; Addition and Deletions | |
82 FR 56048 - Certain Backpack Chairs; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation Based on a Withdrawal of the Complaint; Termination of the Investigation | |
82 FR 56117 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Bond Guarantee Program | |
82 FR 56117 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple Bureau of the Fiscal Service Information Collection Requests | |
82 FR 56052 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection Comments Requested; Fee Waiver Request | |
82 FR 55987 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Consideration of Revocation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders in Part | |
82 FR 55990 - Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders | |
82 FR 55989 - Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings From People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation | |
82 FR 55986 - Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
82 FR 56100 - SJI Board of Directors Meeting, Notice | |
82 FR 55945 - Special Local Regulations; Charleston Harbor Christmas Parade of Boats, Charleston, SC | |
82 FR 55945 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Jamaica Bay, Queens, NY | |
82 FR 56056 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
82 FR 56098 - Consolidating the Retirement Research Consortium and the Disability Research Consortium Into the Retirement and Disability Research Consortium | |
82 FR 55986 - Announcement of Grant Application Deadlines and Funding Levels for the Assistance to High Energy Cost Rural Communities Grant Program | |
82 FR 56102 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Driver Commuting Practices Survey | |
82 FR 55985 - Departmental Management; Performance Review Board Membership; Notice Appointments | |
82 FR 56111 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
82 FR 56046 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed United States Gypsum Company Mine Expansion/Modernization Project, Imperial County, CA | |
82 FR 56103 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
82 FR 56105 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
82 FR 56106 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
82 FR 56108 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
82 FR 56107 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
82 FR 56110 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
82 FR 56120 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, 2017/2018 | |
82 FR 56052 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
82 FR 56062 - Information Collection: Voluntary Reporting of Performance Indicators | |
82 FR 56059 - Information Collection: Voluntary Reporting of Planned New Reactor Applications | |
82 FR 56101 - Alloy Property Company, LLC-Adverse Abandonment-Chicago Terminal Railroad in Chicago, Ill. | |
82 FR 56012 - Public Availability of Department of Energy FY 2016 Service Contract Inventory | |
82 FR 56039 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request Information Collection Request Title: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Client-Level Data Reporting System, OMB No. 0906-XXXX-New | |
82 FR 56038 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request | |
82 FR 56037 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request Title: Rural Health Care Services Outreach Program Performance Improvement and Measurement Systems (PIMS) Measures, OMB No. 0906-0009-Revision | |
82 FR 56040 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request Title: NURSE Corps Loan Repayment Program OMB No. 0915-0140-Revision | |
82 FR 56048 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
82 FR 56098 - Administrative Declaration of an Economic Injury Disaster for the State of Oregon | |
82 FR 56097 - Administrative Declaration of an Economic Injury Disaster for the State of Oregon | |
82 FR 56021 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership 10399, The RiverBank, Wyoming, Minnesota | |
82 FR 56021 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10176, Columbia River Bank, The Dalles, Oregon | |
82 FR 56045 - Foreign Endangered Species; Issuance of Permits | |
82 FR 56024 - Submission for OMB Review; General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Implementation of Information Technology Security Provision | |
82 FR 56022 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
82 FR 56021 - Agency information collection activities: Announcement of Board approval under delegated authority and submission to OMB | |
82 FR 56027 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
82 FR 56028 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
82 FR 56026 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
82 FR 56025 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
82 FR 56099 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Supplemental Questions for Visa Applicants | |
82 FR 56098 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alabama | |
82 FR 55947 - New Mailing Standards for Domestic Mailing Services Products | |
82 FR 56014 - Notice of Application; Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC | |
82 FR 56013 - Order on Intent To Revoke Market-Based Rate Authority | |
82 FR 56014 - Notice of Complaint; Clear River Energy Center LLC v. ISO New England Inc., New England Power Company, New England Participating Transmission Owners | |
82 FR 56012 - Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene; Ram Valley, LLC | |
82 FR 55990 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Bravo Wharf Recapitalization Project, Year 2 | |
82 FR 55946 - Cost of Living Adjustment to Satellite Carrier Compulsory License Royalty Rates | |
82 FR 55946 - Cost of Living Adjustment to Royalty Rates for Webcaster Statutory License | |
82 FR 56049 - Certain Glucosylated Steviol Glycosides, and Products Containing Same Institution of Investigation | |
82 FR 56049 - Determinations; Forged Steel Fittings From China, Italy, and Taiwan | |
82 FR 56044 - Announcement of Public Meetings: North American Wetlands Conservation Council; Advisory Group for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act | |
82 FR 56067 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Directed Order Functionality | |
82 FR 56075 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to All-Or-None Orders | |
82 FR 56084 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to All-Or-None Orders | |
82 FR 56082 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to All-Or-None Orders | |
82 FR 56089 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Its Fee Schedule, Pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110(a) and (c), To Adopt Pricing for Orders That Execute in an IEX Auction for IEX-Listed Securities | |
82 FR 56072 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Its Director Nomination and Committee Appointment Process and Its Nominating and Governance Committee | |
82 FR 56079 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Its Director Nomination and Committee Appointment Process and Its Nominating and Governance Committee | |
82 FR 56065 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Its Director Nomination and Committee Appointment Process and Its Nominating and Governance Committee | |
82 FR 56076 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Its Director Nomination and Committee Appointment Process and Its Nominating and Governance Committee | |
82 FR 56069 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Its Nominating and Governance Committee and Regulatory Oversight and Compliance Committee | |
82 FR 56085 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Its Nominating and Governance Committee and Regulatory Oversight and Compliance Committee | |
82 FR 56088 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 56079 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 56093 - New Mountain Finance Corporation, et al. | |
82 FR 56019 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
82 FR 56020 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
82 FR 55970 - Nationwide Number Portability; Numbering Policies for Modern Communications | |
82 FR 56033 - Grandfathering Policy for Packages and Homogenous Cases of Product Without a Product Identifier; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
82 FR 56031 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Export of Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Products: Export Certificates | |
82 FR 56064 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 56036 - Safety Assessment for Investigational New Drug Safety Reporting; Public Workshop | |
82 FR 56035 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Electronic Signatures | |
82 FR 56031 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approvals | |
82 FR 56043 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 56044 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Meetings | |
82 FR 56043 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 56058 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests: 2019-2021 IMLS National Medals Nomination Forms | |
82 FR 56063 - New Postal Products | |
82 FR 56030 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 55951 - Approval of Nebraska Air Quality Implementation Plans; Adoption of a New Chapter Under the Nebraska Administrative Code; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule | |
82 FR 55942 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Hawthorne, NV | |
82 FR 55965 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Spanish Fork, UT | |
82 FR 55939 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes | |
82 FR 55943 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Pueblo, CO | |
82 FR 55964 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Clanton, AL | |
82 FR 55941 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Alexander City, AL | |
82 FR 55923 - Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loan and Grant Programs | |
82 FR 55955 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
82 FR 55968 - State of Idaho Voluntary Transfer of Primacy of the Class II Underground Injection Control Program to the Environmental Protection Agency | |
82 FR 55958 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Employment and Training Administration
Copyright Royalty Board
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Final rule; request for comments.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), a Rural Development Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), hereinafter referred to as RUS or the Agency, is issuing a final rule to streamline, revise, and update the Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) Grant Program, to minimize the burden of applying for and awarding grants. The Agency's goal is to reduce the regulatory burden on grant applicants and to ensure that grant funds are awarded for projects with the most demonstrable need. The Agency will follow this final rule affording the public an opportunity to comment with a subsequent final rule.
This final rule is effective December 27, 2017.
Written comments must be received on or before December 27, 2017.
Submit your comments on this Rule by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal at
•
Additional information about the Rural Development and its programs is available on the Internet at
Kenneth Kuchno, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Policy and Outreach Division, Rural Utilities Service, Telecommunications Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1599, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-1550, Telephone number: (202) 690-4673.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The Agency has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. In addition, all state and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule and, in accordance with section 212(e) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912(e)), administrative appeal procedures must be exhausted before an action against the Department or its agencies may be initiated.
This final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review,” as implemented under USDA's regulations at 7 CFR part 3015.
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This rule is expected to provide meaningful burden reduction by removing interim steps that delay the application process and reducing the amount of resources needed to process and award grant applications.
RUS has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule has been examined under Agency environmental regulations at 7 CFR part 1970. The Administrator has determined that this is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the environment. Therefore, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number assigned to this program is 10.855, Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans and Grants. The Catalog is available on the Internet at
This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of §§ 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
RUS is committed to the E-Government Act, which requires
The policies contained in this final rule do not have any substantial direct effect on 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. Nor does this final rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the states is not required.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Rural Development has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a tribe would like to engage in consultation with Rural Development on this rule, please contact Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at (720) 544-2911 or
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). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
This final rule contains no new reporting or recordkeeping burdens under OMB control number 0572-0096 that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Rural Development is a mission area within the USDA comprised of the Rural Utilities Service, Rural Housing Service and Rural Business/Cooperative Service. Rural Development's mission is to increase economic opportunity and improve the quality of life for all rural Americans. Rural Development meets its mission by providing loans, loan guarantees, grants, and technical assistance through more than 40 programs aimed at creating and improving housing, businesses, and infrastructure throughout rural America.
RUS loan, loan guarantee, and grant programs act as a catalyst for economic and community development. By financing improvements to rural electric, water and waste, and telecom and broadband infrastructure, RUS also plays a big role in improving other measures of quality of life in rural America, including public health and safety, environmental protection and conservation, and cultural and historic preservation.
DLT grants and loans are designed to encourage and improve telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas through the use of computer networks and related advanced technologies by students, teachers, medical professionals, and rural residents. RUS believes that need is often greatest in areas that are economically challenged, costly to serve, and experiencing outward migration. RUS gives priority to rural areas that the Agency believes have the greatest need for distance learning and telemedicine services based on the criteria outlined in the program regulation 7 CFR part 1734. This program is consistent with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that designate telecommunications service discounts for schools, libraries, and rural health care centers. The DLT Program continues to implement the provision of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 950aaa
Under this rulemaking, RUS is streamlining and revising the DLT Grant Program to minimize the burden of the application and selection processes in this competitive grant program and to ensure that grants are awarded for projects with the most demonstrable need. In order to reduce time required to announce the program on an annual basis, the agency will no longer publish a Notice of Funds Availability and will ensure that all pertinent information related to the application period is posted in the annual funding opportunity posted on
Changes to the DLT grant program regulation are statutory requirements and non-statutory issues. The statutory requirement changes are as follows:
(A) In 7 CFR part 1703, subpart E (newly designated 7 CFR part 1734, subpart B), revises the “Appeals” section. In review of the guiding statute, program appeals are defined as applying only to RUS Telecommunications and Electric Borrowers.
(B) In 7 CFR part 1703, subpart D (newly designated 7 CFR part 1734, subpart A), The Agency is revising this regulation to make RUS Telecom and Electrics borrowers eligible to apply for grants. In review of the guiding statute RUS Telecom and Electric Borrowers are not restricted to DLT loans only.
(C) The Agency is now making broadband facilities an eligible grant purpose. In the past, to leverage appropriations to their fullest, the Agency restricted transmission facilities from being an eligible purpose and focused the program on end user equipment. In today's environment, broadband facilities have become an integral part of providing distant learning and telemedicine services and therefor the Agency has decided to include them as an eligible grant purpose.
(D) In 7 CFR part 1703, 7 CFR part 1734 and 7 CFR part 1735 make administrative updates to reflect changes affected by this rule.
Other than the statutory changes, the Agency is affording the public the opportunity to comment on the following
(A) Relocate the DLT Loan and Grant Program from 7 CFR part 1703, subparts D, E, F and G to 7 CFR part 1734, subparts A, B, C, and D.
(B) In 7 CFR part 1703, subpart D (newly designated 7 CFR part 1734, subpart A), remove the definitions of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC), and Champion Community.
(C) In 7 CFR part 1703, subpart E (newly designated 7 CFR part 1734, subpart B), remove points for scoring the criteria from the code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which is used for determining the competitive need and eligibility among submitted applications. Instead, publish the points for scoring the criteria in the application guide and on the program Web site, and update as needed. This change is being made to allow the DLT program to keep up with changes in the industry and the landscape in rural America.
(D) In Subparts E, F and G (newly designated 7 CFR part 1734, subparts B, C, and D), remove references to the publication of notices in the
Community development, Grant programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—housing and community development, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
Community development, Grant programs—education, Grant programs—health, Loan programs—education, Loan programs—health, Rural areas.
Loan programs—communications, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Accordingly, for reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter XVII, title 7, the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 901
This subpart H sets forth RUS' policies and procedures for making loan deferments of principal and interest payments on direct loans or insured loans made for electric or telephone purposes, but not for loans made for rural economic development purposes, in accordance with subsection (b) of section 12 of the RE Act. Loan deferments are provided for the purpose of promoting rural development opportunities.
7 U.S.C. 901
The purpose of the Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) Loan and Grant Program is to encourage and improve telemedicine services and distance learning services in rural areas through the use of telecommunications, computer networks, and related advanced technologies by students, teachers, medical professionals, and rural residents. This subpart describes
(a) The transmission of information is vital to the economic development, education, and health of rural Americans. To further this objective, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) will provide financial assistance to distance learning and telemedicine projects that will improve the access for people residing in rural areas to educational, learning, training, and health care services.
(b) In providing financial assistance, RUS will give priority to rural areas that it believes have the greatest need for distance learning and telemedicine services. RUS believes that generally the need is greatest in areas that are economically challenged, costly to serve, and experiencing outward migration. This program is consistent with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that designate telecommunications service discounts for schools, libraries, and rural health care centers. RUS will take into consideration the community's involvement in the proposed project and the applicant's ability to leverage grant funds.
(c) In administering this subpart, RUS will not favor or mandate the use of one particular technology over another.
(d) Rural institutions are encouraged to cooperate with each other, with applicants, and with end-users to promote the program being implemented under this subpart.
(e) RUS staff will make diligent efforts to inform potential applicants in rural areas of the programs being implemented under this subpart.
(f) The Administrator may provide loans under this subpart to an entity that has received a telecommunications or electric loan under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. A borrower receiving a loan shall:
(1) Make the funds provided available to entities that qualify as distance learning or telemedicine projects satisfying the requirements of this subpart, under any terms it so chooses as long as the terms are no more stringent than the terms under which it received the financial assistance.
(2) Use the loan to acquire, install, improve, or extend a distance learning or telemedicine system referred to in this subpart.
(g) The Administrator will allocate funds that are appropriated each fiscal year for subparts B, C, and D, of this part respectively. Not more than 30 days before the end of the fiscal year, the Administrator may transfer any funds not committed to grants in the combination loan and grant program to the grant program.
(h) Financial assistance may be provided for end user sites. Financial assistance may also be provided for hubs located in rural or non-rural areas if they are necessary to provide distance learning or telemedicine services to rural residents at end user sites.
(i) The Administrator will publish, at the end of each fiscal year, a notice on the RUS Telecommunications Program Web site of all applications receiving financial assistance under this subpart. Subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), applications will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250.
As used in this part:
(1) Rural elementary, secondary schools, and other educational institutions, such as institutions of higher education, vocational and adult training and educational centers, libraries and teacher training centers, and students, teachers and instructors using such rural educational facilities, that participate in distance learning telecommunications program through a project funded under this subpart;
(2) Rural hospitals, primary care centers or facilities, such as medical centers, nursing homes, and clinics, and physicians and staff using such rural medical facilities, that participants in a rural distance learning telecommunications program through a project funded under this part; and
(3) Other rural community facilities, institutions, or entities that receive distance learning or telemedicine services.
(1) Assistance in learning to manage, operate, or use equipment or systems; and
(2) Studies, analyses, designs, reports, manuals, guides, literature, or other forms of creating, acquiring, or disseminating information.
To be eligible to receive a grant, loan and grant combination, or loan under this subpart:
(a) The applicant must be legally organized as an incorporated organization, an Indian tribe or tribal organization, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b(b) and (c), a state or local unit of government, a consortium, as defined in § 1734.3, or other legal entity, including a private corporation organized on a for-profit or not-for profit basis. Each applicant must provide written evidence of its legal capacity to contract with RUS to obtain the grant, loan and grant combination, or the loan, and comply with all applicable requirements. If a consortium lacks the legal capacity to contract, each individual entity must contract with RUS in its own behalf.
(b) The applicant proposes to utilize the financing to:
(1) Operate a rural End-User Site for the purpose of providing Distance Learning or Telemedicine services; or
(2) Deliver distance learning or telemedicine services to entities that operate a rural community facility or to residents of rural areas at rates calculated to ensure that the benefit of the financial assistance is passed through to such entities or to residents of rural areas.
(a) During the period between the submission of an application and the execution of documents, the applicant must inform RUS if the project is no longer viable or the applicant no longer is requesting financial assistance for the project. When the applicant so informs RUS, the selection will be rescinded or the application withdrawn and written notice to that effect sent to the applicant.
(b) If an application has been selected and the scope of the project changes substantially, the applicant may be required to reapply in the next program window if the agency and the selected applicant cannot agree on the new scope of the award.
(c) If state or local governments raise objections to a proposed project under the intergovernmental review process that are not resolved within 90 days from the time the public is made aware of the award, the Administrator will rescind the selection and written notice to that effect will be sent to the applicant. The Administrator, in his sole discretion, may extend the 90 day period if it appears resolution is imminent.
(d) RUS may request additional information that would not change the application or scoring, in order to complete the appropriate documents covering financial assistance.
(e)
(2) The grant agreement and the loan documents will include, among other things, conditions on the release or advance of funds and include at a minimum, a project description, approved purposes, the maximum amount of the financial assistance,
(3) The recipient of a loan will be required to execute a security instrument in form and substance satisfactory to RUS and must, before receiving any advance of loan funds, provide security that is adequate, in the opinion of RUS, to assure repayment, within the time agreed, of all loans to the borrower under the DLT program. This assurance will generally be provided by a first lien upon all facilities and equipment financed by the loan. RUS may require additional security as it deems necessary.
(4) Adequate security may also be provided by third-party guarantees, letters of credit, pledges of revenue, or other forms of security satisfactory to RUS.
(5) The security instrument and other loan documents required by RUS in connection with a loan under the DLT program shall contain such pledges, covenants, and other provisions as may, in the opinion of RUS, be required to secure repayment of the loan.
(6) If the project does not constitute a complete operating system, the DLT recipient shall provide evidence, in form and substance satisfactory to RUS, demonstrating that the recipient has sufficient contractual, financing, or other arrangements to assure that the project will provide adequate and efficient service.
(f) Prior to the execution of a grant and loan document, RUS reserves the right to require any changes in the project or legal documents covering the project to protect the integrity of the DLT program and the interests of the government.
(g) If the applicant fails to submit, within 120 calendar days from the date RUS notifies the applicant that they have been selected for an award, all of the information that RUS determines to be necessary to prepare legal documents and satisfy other requirements of this subpart, RUS may rescind the selection of the application.
(a) For financial assistance of $100,000 or greater, prior to the disbursement of a grant and a loan, the recipient, if it is not a unit of government, will provide evidence of fidelity bond coverage as required by 2 CFR part 200, which is adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400.
(b) Grants and loans will be disbursed to recipients on a reimbursement basis, or with unpaid invoices for the eligible purposes contained in this subpart, by the following process:
(1) An SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” will be completed by the recipient and submitted to RUS not more frequently than once a month;
(2) RUS will review the SF 270 for accuracy when received and will schedule payment if the form is satisfactory. Payment will ordinarily be made within 30 days; and
(c) The recipient's share in the cost of the project must be disbursed in advance of the loan and grant, or if the recipient agrees, on a pro rata distribution basis with financial assistance during the disbursement period. Recipients will not be permitted to provide their contributions at the end of the project.
(d) A combination loan and grant will be disbursed on a pro rata basis based on the respective amounts of financial assistance provided.
(a) A project performance activity report will be required of all recipients on an annual basis until the project is complete and the funds are expended by the applicant.
(b) Recipients shall diligently monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met, projected work by time periods is being accomplished, and other performance objectives are being achieved. Recipients are to submit all project performance reports, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;
(2) A description of any problems, delays, or adverse conditions which have occurred, or are anticipated, and which may affect the attainment of overall project objectives, prevent the meeting of time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular project work elements during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation; and
(3) Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period.
(c) RUS will monitor recipients, as it determines necessary, to ensure that projects are completed in accordance with the approved scope of work and that the financial assistance is expended for approved purposes.
A recipient of financial assistance shall provide RUS with an audit for each year, beginning with the year in which a portion of the financial assistance is expended, in accordance with the following:
(a) If the recipient is a for-profit entity, a Telecommunications or Electric borrower, or any other entity not covered by the following paragraph, the recipient shall provide an independent audit report in accordance with 7 CFR part 1773, “Policy on Audits of RUS Borrowers.”
(b) If the recipient is a state or local government, or non-profit organization, the recipient shall provide an audit in accordance with subpart F of 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400.
(c) Grantees shall comply with 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400, and rules on the disposition of grant assets in Part 200 shall be applied regardless of the type of legal organization of the grantee.
RUS will conduct reviews as necessary to determine whether the financial assistance was expended for approved purposes. The recipient is responsible for ensuring that the project complies with all applicable regulations, and that the grants and loans are expended only for approved purposes. The recipient is responsible for ensuring that disbursements and expenditures of funds are properly supported by invoices, contracts, bills of sale, canceled checks, or other appropriate forms of evidence, and that such supporting material is provided to RUS, upon request, and is otherwise made available, at the recipient's premises, for review by the RUS representatives, the recipient's certified public accountant, the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the General Accounting Office, and any other official conducting an audit of the recipient's financial statements or records, and program performance for the grants and loans made under this subpart. The recipient shall permit RUS to inspect and copy any records and documents that pertain to the project.
The recipient shall obtain prior written approval by RUS for any material change to the scope or objectives of the project, including any changes to the scope of work or the budget submitted to RUS. Any material change shall be contained in a revised scope of work plan to be prepared by the recipient, submitted to, and approved by RUS in writing. If RUS does not approve the change and the awardee is unable to fulfill the original purposes of the award, the awardee will work with RUS to return or rescind the financial assistance.
(a) The financial assistance may be terminated when RUS and the recipient agree upon the conditions of the termination, the effective date of the termination, and, in the case of a partial termination of the financial assistance, any unadvanced portion of the financial assistance to be terminated and any advanced portion of the financial assistance to be returned.
(b) The recipient may terminate the financial assistance by written notification to RUS, providing the reasons for such termination, the effective date, and, in the case of a partial termination, the portion of the financial assistance to be terminated. In the case of a partial termination, if RUS believes that the remaining portion of the financial assistance will not accomplish the approved purposes, then RUS may terminate the financial assistance in its entirety, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section.
RUS will expedite consideration and determination of an application submitted by an RUS telecommunications borrower for a loan under the Act or an advance of such loan funds to be used in conjunction with financial assistance under subparts B, C, or D of this part. See 7 CFR part 1737 for loans and 7 CFR part 1744 for advances under this section.
For distance learning and telemedicine projects, grants shall finance only the costs for approved purposes. Grants shall be expended only for the costs associated with the capital assets associated with the project. The following are approved grant purposes:
(a) Acquiring and installing, by lease or purchase, eligible equipment as defined in § 1734.3;
(b) Purchases of extended warranties, site licenses, and maintenance contracts, for a period not to exceed 3 years from installation date, so long as such purchases are in support of eligible equipment included in the project and made concurrently;
(c) Acquiring or developing instructional programming; but shall not include salaries, benefits, and overhead of medical, educational, or any personnel employed by the applicant. The funded development and acquisition of instructional programming must be done through an independent 3rd party, and may not be performed using the applicant's employees.
(d) Providing technical assistance and instruction for using eligible equipment, including any related software; developing instructional programming; or providing engineering and environmental studies relating to the establishment or expansion of the phase of the project that is being financed with the grant. These purposes shall not exceed 10 percent of the grant; and
(e) Purchasing and installing broadband facilities. This purpose is limited to a maximum of 20 percent of the request grant amount and must be used for providing distance learning or telemedicine services.
(a) The grant applicant's minimum matching contribution must equal 15 percent of the grant amount requested and shall be used for approved purposes for grants listed in § 1734.21. Matching contributions generally must be in the form of cash. However, in-kind contributions solely for the purposes listed in § 1734.21 may be substituted for cash.
(b) In-kind items listed in § 1734.21 must be non-depreciated or new assets with established monetary values. Use of specific manufacturers' equipment or services, or discounts thereon, are not considered eligible in-kind matching if the manufacturer, or its authorized reseller, is a vendor on the project, the grant writer for the grant application, or has undertaken any responsibility on the grant application, including payment.
(c) Costs incurred by the applicant, or others on behalf of the applicant, for facilities or equipment installed, or other services rendered prior to submission of a completed application, shall not be considered as an eligible in-kind matching contribution.
(d) Costs incurred for non-approved purposes for grant outlined in § 1734.23 shall not be used as an in-kind matching contribution.
(e) Any financial assistance from Federal sources will not be considered as matching contributions under this subpart unless there is a Federal statutory exception specifically authorizing the Federal financial assistance to be considered as a matching contribution.
(a) A grant made under this subpart will not be provided or used:
(1) To pay for medical or educational equipment not having telemedicine or distance learning as its essential function;
(2) To pay for Electronic Medical Records (EMR) systems;
(3) To pay salaries, wages, or employee benefits to medical or educational personnel;
(4) To pay for the salaries or administrative expenses of the applicant or the project;
(5) To purchase equipment that will be owned by the local exchange carrier or another telecommunications service provider unless that service provider is the applicant.
(6) To duplicate facilities providing distance learning or telemedicine services in place or to reimburse the applicant or others for costs incurred prior to RUS' receipt of the completed application;
(7) To pay costs of preparing the application package for financial assistance under this program;
(8) For projects whose sole objective is to provide links between teachers and students or between medical professionals who are located at the same facility or campus environment;
(9) For site development and the destruction or alteration of buildings;
(10) For the purchase of land, buildings, or building construction;
(11) For projects located in areas covered by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501
(12) For any purpose that the Administrator has not specifically approved;
(13) Except for leases provided for in § 1734.21, to pay the cost of recurring or operating expenses for the project; or
(14) For any other purposes not specifically contained in § 1734.21.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in § 1734.12, grants shall not be used to finance a project, in part, when the success of the project is dependent upon
Applications for grants under this subpart will be subject to limitations on the proposed amount of grant funds. The Administrator will establish the maximum and minimum amounts of a grant to be made available to an individual recipient for each fiscal year under this subpart by publishing notice of the maximum and minimum amounts in the RUS DLT Program Application Guide and/or the RUS DLT Program Web site and in the funding opportunity posted on
The following items are required to be submitted to RUS in support of an application for grant funds:
(a) An application for Federal Assistance. A completed Standard Form 424.
(b) An executive summary of the project. The applicant must provide RUS with a general project overview that addresses the following 9 categories:
(1) A description of why the project is needed;
(2) An explanation of how the applicant will address the need cited in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, why the applicant requires financial assistance, the types of educational or medical services to be offered by the project, and the benefits to rural residents;
(3) A description of the applicant, documenting eligibility in accordance with § 1734.4;
(4) An explanation of the total project cost including a breakdown of the grant required and the source of matching contribution and other financial assistance for the remainder of the project;
(5) A statement specifying whether the project is either a distance learning or telemedicine facility as defined in § 1734.3. If the project provides both distance learning and telemedicine services, the applicant must identify the predominant use of the system;
(6) A general overview of the telecommunications system to be developed, including the types of equipment, technologies, and facilities used;
(7) A description of the participating hubs and end user sites and the number of rural residents that will be served by the project at each end user site
(8) A certification by the applicant that facilities constructed with grants do not duplicate adequate established telemedicine or distance learning services; and
(9) A listing of the location of each end user site (city, town, village, borough, or rural areas) plus the State.
(c) Scoring criteria documentation. Each grant applicant must address and provide documentation on how it meets each of the scoring criteria contained in § 1734.26, and as supplemented in the listing on
(d) A scope of work. The scope of work must include, at a minimum:
(1) The specific activities to be performed under the project;
(2) Who will carry out the activities;
(3) The time-frames for accomplishing the project objectives and activities; and
(4) A budget for all capital expenditures reflecting the line item costs for approved purposes for both the grant funds and other sources of funds for the project. Separately, the budget must specify any line item costs that are non-approved purposes for grants as contained in § 1734.23.
(e) Financial information and sustainability. The applicant must provide a narrative description demonstrating: Feasibility of the project, including having sufficient resources and expertise necessary to undertake and complete the project; and, how the project will be sustained following completion of the project.
(f) A statement of experience. The applicant must provide a written narrative (not exceeding three single spaced pages) describing its demonstrated capability and experience, if any, in operating an educational or health care endeavor and any project similar to the project. Experience in a similar project is desirable but not required.
(g) Funding commitment from other sources. The applicant must provide evidence, in form and substance satisfactory to RUS, that funding agreements have been obtained to ensure completion of the project. These agreements shall be sufficient to ensure:
(1) Payment of all proposed expenditures for the project;
(2) All required matching contributions in § 1734.22; and
(3) Any other funds necessary to complete the project.
(h) A telecommunications system plan. A telecommunications system plan consisting of the following:
(1) The capabilities of the telecommunications terminal equipment, including a description of the specific equipment which will be used to deliver the proposed service. The applicant must document discussions with various technical sources which could include consultants, engineers, product vendors, or internal technical experts, provide detailed cost estimates for operating and maintaining the end user equipment and provide evidence that alternative equipment and technologies were evaluated.
(2) A listing of the proposed telecommunications terminal equipment, telecommunications transmission facilities, data terminal equipment, interactive video equipment, computer hardware and software systems, and components that process data for transmission via telecommunications, computer network components, communication satellite ground station equipment, or any other elements of the telecommunications system designed to further the purposes of this subpart, that the applicant intends to build or fund using RUS financial assistance. If funds are being requested for broadband facilities, a description of the use of these facilities and how they will be used to deliver distance learning or telemedicine services.
(3) A description of the consultations with the appropriate telecommunications carriers (including other interexchange carriers, cable television operators, enhanced service providers, providers of satellite services and telecommunications equipment manufacturers and distributors) and the anticipated role of such providers in the proposed telecommunications system.
(i) Compliance with other Federal statutes. The applicant must provide evidence of compliance with other Federal statutes and regulations including, but not limited to the following:
(1) E.O. 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by E.O. 11375 and as supplemented by regulations contained in 41 CFR part 60;
(2) Architectural barriers;
(3) Flood hazard area precautions;
(4) Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970;
(5) Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998 (41 U.S.C. 8101
(6) E.O.s 12549 and 12689, Debarment and Suspension, 2 CFR part 180, which is adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 417;
(7) Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment (31 U.S.C. 1352), 2 CFR part 418.
(j) Environmental review requirements.
(1) The applicant must provide details of the project's impact on the human environment and historic properties, in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970. The
(2) The applicant must use any programmatic environmental agreements, available from RUS, in effect at the time of filing to assist in complying with the requirements of this section.
(k) Evidence of legal authority and existence. The applicant must provide evidence of its legal existence and authority to enter into a grant agreement with RUS and perform the activities proposed under the grant application.
(l) Federal debt certification. The applicant must provide a certification that it is not delinquent on any obligation owed to the government (31 U.S.C. 3720B).
(m) Consultation with USDA State Director, Rural Development. The applicant must provide evidence that it has consulted with the USDA State Director, Rural Development, concerning the availability of other sources of funding available at the State or local level.
(n) Supplemental information. The applicant should provide any additional information it considers relevant to the project and likely to be helpful in determining the extent to which the project would further the purposes of the 1996 Act.
The criteria by which applications will be scored will be published in the RUS DLT Program application guide and/or the RUS DLT Program Web site and in the funding opportunity posted on
(a) Applications will be evaluated competitively by the Agency and will be ranked in accordance with § 1734.26. Applications will then be awarded generally in rank order until all grant funds are expended, subject to paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section. RUS will make determinations regarding the reasonableness of all numbers; dollar levels; rates; the nature and design of the project; costs; location; and other characteristics of the application and the project to determine the number of points assigned to a grant application for all selection criteria.
(b) Regardless of the number of points an application receives in accordance with § 1734.26, the Administrator may, based on a review of the applications in accordance with the requirements of this subpart:
(1) Limit the number of applications selected for projects located in any one State during a fiscal year;
(2) Limit the number of selected applications for a particular type of project;
(3) Select an application receiving fewer points than another higher scoring application if there are insufficient funds during a particular funding period to select the higher scoring application. In this case, however, the Administrator will provide the applicant of the higher scoring application the opportunity to reduce the amount of its grant request to the amount of funds available. If the applicant agrees to lower its grant request, it must certify that the purposes of the project can be met, and the Administrator must determine the project is financially feasible at the lower amount in accordance with § 1734.25(e). An applicant or multiple applicants affected under this paragraph will have the opportunity to be considered for loan financing in accordance with subparts C and D of this part.
(c) RUS will not approve a grant if RUS determines that:
(1) The applicant's proposal does not indicate financial feasibility or is not sustainable in accordance with the requirements of § 1734.25(e);
(2) The applicant's proposal indicates technical flaws, which, in the opinion of RUS, would prevent successful implementation, operation, or sustainability of the project;
(3) Other applications would provide more benefit to rural America based on a review of the financial and technical information submitted in accordance with § 1734.25(e).
(4) Any other aspect of the applicant's proposal fails to adequately address any requirement of this subpart or contains inadequacies which would, in the opinion of RUS, undermine the ability of the project to meet the general purpose of this subpart or comply with policies of the DLT Program contained in § 1734.2.
(d) RUS may reduce the amount of the applicant's grant based on insufficient program funding for the fiscal year in which the project is reviewed. RUS will discuss its findings informally with the applicant and make every effort to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with the applicant. Any discussions with the applicant and agreements made with regard to a reduced grant amount will be confirmed in writing.
(a) Applications will be accepted as announced in the RUS DLT Program application guide and/or the RUS DLT Program Web site and in the funding opportunity posted on
(b) When submitting paper applications:
(1) Applications for grants shall be submitted to the RUS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1590, Washington, DC 20250-1590. Applications should be marked “Attention: Assistant Administrator, Telecommunications Program”.
(2) Applications must be submitted to RUS postmarked no later than the application filing deadline established by the Administrator if the applications are to be considered during the period for which the application was submitted. The deadline for submission of applications each fiscal year will be announced in the RUS DLT Program application guide and/or the RUS DLT Program Web site and in the funding opportunity posted on
(3) All applicants must submit an original and a digital copy of a completed application.
RUS Telecommunications and Electric Borrowers may appeal the decision to reject their application. Any appeal must be made, in writing, within 10 days after the applicant is notified of the determination to deny the application. Appeals shall be submitted to the Administrator, RUS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1590, Washington, DC 20250-1590. Thereafter, the Administrator will review the appeal to determine whether to sustain, reverse, or modify the original determination. Final determinations will be made after consideration of all appeals. The Administrator's determination will be final. A copy of the Administrator's decision will be furnished promptly to the applicant.
(a) A combination loan and grant may be used by eligible organizations as defined in § 1734.4 for distance learning and telemedicine projects to finance 100 percent of the cost of approved purposes contained in § 1734.31 provided that no
(b) Applicants must meet the minimum eligibility requirement for determining the extent to which the project serves rural areas as determined in § 1734.26(b)
The approved purposes for a combination loan and grant are:
(a) Acquiring, by lease or purchase, eligible equipment or facilities as defined in § 1734.3;
(b) Acquiring instructional programming;
(c) Providing technical assistance and instruction for using eligible equipment, including any related software; developing instructional programming; providing engineering or environmental studies relating to the establishment or expansion of the phase of the project that is being financed with a combination loan and grant (this purpose shall not exceed 10 percent of the total requested financial assistance);
(d) Paying for medical or educational equipment and facilities that are shown to be necessary to implement the project, including vehicles utilizing distance learning and telemedicine technology to deliver educational and health care services. The applicant must demonstrate that such items are necessary to meet the purposes under this subpart and financial assistance for such equipment and facilities is not available from other sources at a cost which would not adversely affect the economic viability of the project;
(e) Providing links between teachers and students or medical professionals who are located at the same facility, provided that such facility receives or provides distance learning or telemedicine services as part of a distance learning or telemedicine network which meets the purposes of this subpart;
(f) Providing for site development and alteration of buildings in order to meet the purposes of this subpart. Financial assistance for this purpose must be necessary and incidental to the total amount of financial assistance requested;
(g) Purchasing of land, buildings, or building construction determined by RUS to be necessary and incidental to the project. The applicant must demonstrate that financial assistance funding from other sources is not available at a cost that does not adversely impact the economic viability of the project as determined by the Administrator. Financial assistance for this purpose must be necessary and incidental to the total amount of financial assistance requested; and
(h) Acquiring telecommunications or broadband facilities provided that no telecommunications carrier will install such facilities under the Act or through other financial procedures within a reasonable time period and at a cost to the applicant that does not impact the economic viability of the project, as determined by the Administrator.
(a) Without limitation, a combination loan and grant made under this subpart shall not be expended:
(1) To pay salaries, wages, or employee benefits to medical or educational personnel;
(2) To pay for the salaries or administrative expenses of the applicant or the project;
(3) To purchase equipment that will be owned by the local exchange carrier or another telecommunications service provider, unless the applicant is the local exchange carrier or other telecommunications service provider;
(4) To duplicate facilities providing distance learning or telemedicine services in place or to reimburse the applicant or others for costs incurred prior to RUS' receipt of the completed application;
(5) For projects located in areas covered by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501
(6) For any purpose that the Administrator has not specifically approved;
(7) Except for leases (see § 1734.31), to pay the cost of recurring or operating expenses for the project; or,
(8) For any other purposes not specifically outlined in § 1734.31.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in § 1734.12, funds shall not be used to finance a project, in part, when the success of the project is dependent upon the receipt of additional financial assistance under this subpart or is dependent upon the receipt of other funding that is not assured.
Applications for a combination loan and grant under this subpart will be subject to limitations on the proposed amount of loans and grants. The Administrator will establish the maximum and minimum amount of loans and grants and the portion of grant funds as a percentage of total assistance for each project to be made available to an individual recipient for each fiscal year under this subpart, by posting a funding opportunity in the RUS DLT Program Application Guide and/or the RUS DLT Program Web site and in the funding opportunity posted on
The following items are required to be submitted to RUS in support of an application for a combination loan and grant:
(a)
(b)
(1) A description of why the project is needed;
(2) An explanation of how the applicant will address the need cited in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, why the applicant requires financial assistance, the types of educational or medical services to be offered by the project, and the benefits to the rural residents;
(3) A description of the applicant, documenting eligibility in accordance with § 1734.4;
(4) An explanation of the total project cost including a breakdown of the combination loan and grant required and the source of funding, if applicable, for the remainder of the project;
(5) A statement specifying whether the project provides predominantly distance learning or telemedicine services as defined in § 1734.3. If the project provides both distance learning and telemedicine services, the applicant must identify the predominant use of the system;
(6) A general overview of the telecommunications system to be developed, including the types of equipment, technologies, and facilities used;
(7) A description of the participating hubs and end user sites and the number of rural residents that will be served by the project at each end user site;
(8) A certification by the applicant that facilities constructed with a combination loan and grant do not duplicate adequately established telemedicine or distance learning services.
(9) A listing of the location of each end user site (city, town, village, borough, or rural area plus the State).
(c) A scope of work. The scope of work must include, at a minimum:
(1) The specific activities to be performed under the project;
(2) Who will carry out the activities;
(3) The time-frames for accomplishing the project objectives and activities; and
(4) A budget for capital expenditures reflecting the line item costs for both the combination loan and grant and any other sources of funds for the project.
(d) Financial information. The applicant must show its financial ability to complete the project; show project feasibility; and provide evidence that it can execute a note for a loan with a maturity period greater than one year. For educational institutions participating in a project application (including all members of a consortium), the financial data must reflect revenue and expense reports and balance sheet reports, reflecting net worth, for the most recent annual reporting period preceding the date of the application. For medical institutions participating in a project application (including all members of a consortium), the financial data must include income statement and balance sheet reports, reflecting net worth, for the most recent completed fiscal year preceding the date of the application. When the applicant is a partnership, company, corporation, or other entity, current balance sheets, reflecting net worth, are needed from each of the entities that has at least a 20 percent interest in such partnership, company, corporation or other entity. When the applicant is a consortium, a current balance sheet, reflecting net worth, is needed from each member of the consortium and from each of the entities that has at least a 20 percent interest in such member of the consortium.
(1) Applicants must include sufficient pro-forma financial data that adequately reflects the financial capability of project participants and the project as a whole to continue a sustainable project for a minimum of 10 years and repay the loan portion of the combination loan and grant. This documentation should include sources of sufficient income or revenues to pay operating expenses including telecommunications access and toll charges, system maintenance, salaries, training, and any other general operating expenses, provide for replacement of depreciable items, and show repayment of interest and principal for the loan portion of the combination loan and grant.
(2) A list of property which will be used as collateral to secure repayment of the loan. The applicant shall purchase and own collateral that secures the loan free from liens or security interests and take all actions necessary to perfect a security interest in the collateral that secures the loan. RUS considers as adequate security for a loan, a guarantee by a RUS Telecommunications or Electric borrower or by another qualified party. Additional forms of security, including letters of credit, real estate, or any other items will be considered. RUS will determine the adequacy of the security offered.
(3) As applicable, a depreciation schedule covering all assets of the project. Those assets for which a combination loan and grant are being requested should be clearly indicated.
(4) For each hub and end user site, the applicant must identify and provide reasonable evidence of each source of revenue. If the projection relies on cost sharing arrangements among hub and end user sites, the applicant must provide evidence of agreements made among project participants.
(5) For applicants eligible under § 1734.4(1), an explanation of the economic analysis justifying the rate structure to ensure that the benefit, including cost saving, of the financial assistance is passed through to the other persons receiving telemedicine or distance learning services.
(e) A statement of experience. The applicant must provide a written narrative (not exceeding three single spaced pages) describing its demonstrated capability and experience, if any, in operating an educational or health care endeavor similar to the project. Experience in a similar project is desirable but not required.
(f) A telecommunications system plan. A telecommunications system plan, consisting of the following (the items in paragraphs (f)(4) and (5) of this section are required only when the applicant is requesting a combination loan and grant for telecommunications transmission facilities):
(1) The capabilities of the telecommunications terminal equipment, including a description of the specific equipment which will be used to deliver the proposed service. The applicant must document discussions with various technical sources which could include consultants, engineers, product vendors, or internal technical experts, provide detailed cost estimates for operating and maintaining the end user equipment and provide evidence that alternative equipment and technologies were evaluated.
(2) A listing of the proposed purchases or leases of telecommunications terminal equipment, telecommunications or broadband transmission facilities, data terminal equipment, interactive video equipment, computer hardware and software systems, and components that process data for transmission via telecommunications, computer network components, communication satellite ground station equipment, or any other elements of the telecommunications system designed to further the purposes of this subpart, that the applicant intends to build or fund using a combination loan and grant.
(3) A description of the consultations with the appropriate telecommunications carriers (including other interexchange carriers, cable television operators, enhanced service providers, providers of satellite services, and telecommunications equipment manufacturers and distributors) and the anticipated role of such providers in the proposed telecommunications system.
(4) Results of discussions with local exchange carriers serving the project area addressing the concerns contained in § 1734.31(h).
(5) The capabilities of the telecommunications or broadband transmission facilities, including bandwidth, networking topology, switching, multiplexing, standards, and protocols for intra-networking and open systems architecture (the ability to effectively communicate with other networks). In addition, the applicant must explain the manner in which the transmission facilities will deliver the proposed services. For example, for medical diagnostics, the applicant might indicate whether or not a guest or other diagnosticians can join the network from locations off the network. For educational services, indicate whether or not all hub and end-user sites are able to simultaneously hear in real-time and see each other or the instructional material in real-time. The applicant must include detailed cost estimates for operating and maintaining the network, and include evidence that alternative delivery methods and systems were evaluated.
(g) Compliance with other Federal statutes. The applicant must provide evidence of compliance with other federal statutes and regulations including, but not limited to the following:
(1) E.O. 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by E.O. 11375 and as supplemented by regulations contained in 41 CFR part 60;
(2) Architectural barriers;
(3) Flood hazard area precautions;
(4) Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970;
(5) Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998 (41 U.S.C. 8101
(6) E.O.s 12549 and 12689, Debarment and Suspension, 2 CFR part 180, which is adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 417;
(7) Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment (31 U.S.C. 1352), 2 CFR part 418.
(h) Environmental review requirements.
(1) The applicant must provide details of the project's impact on the human environment and historic properties, in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970. The application must contain a separate section entitled “Environmental Impact of the Project.”
(2) The applicant must use any programmatic environmental agreements, available from RUS, in effect at the time of filing to assist in complying with the requirements of this section.
(i) Evidence of legal authority and existence. The applicant must provide evidence of its legal existence and authority to enter into a grant and incur debt with RUS.
(j) Federal debt certification. The applicant must provide evidence that it is not delinquent on any obligation owed to the government (31 U.S.C. 3720B).
(k) Supplemental information. The applicant should provide any additional information it considers relevant to the project and likely to be helpful in determining the extent to which the project would further the purposes of this subpart.
(l) Additional information required by RUS. The applicant must provide any additional information RUS may consider relevant to the application and necessary to adequately evaluate the application. RUS may also request modifications or changes, including changes in the amount of funds requested, in any proposal described in an application submitted under this subpart.
(a) A combination loan and grant will be approved based on availability of funds, the financial feasibility of the project in accordance with § 1734.34(d), the services to be provided which demonstrate that the project meets the general requirements of this subpart, the design of the project; costs; location; and other characteristics of the application.
(b) RUS will determine, from the information submitted with each application for a combination loan and grant, whether the application achieves sufficient priority, based on the criteria set forth in the 1996 Act, to receive a combination loan and grant from funds available for the fiscal year. If such priority is achieved, RUS will process the combination loan and grant application on a first-in, first-out basis, provided that the total amount of applications on-hand for combination loans and grants does not exceed 90 percent of the total loan and grant funding available for the fiscal year. At such time as the total amount of applications eligible for combination loans and grants, if such applications were approved, exceeds 90 percent of amount of combination loan and grant funding available, RUS will process the remaining applications using the evaluation criteria referenced in § 1734.26.
(c) RUS will not approve a combination loan and grant if RUS determines that:
(1) The applicant's proposal does not indicate financial feasibility, or will not be adequately secured in accordance with the requirements contained in § 1734.34(d);
(2) The applicant's proposal indicates technical flaws, which, in the opinion of RUS, would prevent successful implementation, or operation of the project; or
(3) Any other aspect of the applicant's proposal fails to adequately address any requirements of this subpart or contains inadequacies which would, in the opinion of RUS, undermine the ability of the project to meet the general purpose of this subpart or comply with policies of the DLT program contained in § 1734.2.
(d) RUS will provide the applicant with a statement of any determinations made with regard to paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section. The applicant will be provided 15 days from the date of RUS' letter to respond, provide clarification, or make any adjustments or corrections to the project. If, in the opinion of the Administrator, the applicant fails to adequately respond to any determinations or other findings made by the Administrator, the project will not be funded, and the applicant will be notified of this determination. If the applicant does not agree with this finding, an appeal may be filed in accordance with § 1734.37.
(a) RUS will accept applications for a combination loan and grant submitted by RUS Telecommunications General Field Representatives (GFRs), by Rural Development State Directors, or by applicants themselves. Applications for a combination loan and grant under this subpart may be filed at any time and will be evaluated as received.
(b) Applications submitted to the State Director, Rural Development, in the State serving the headquarters of the project will be evaluated as they are submitted. All applicants must submit an original and an electronic copy of a completed application. The applicant must also submit a copy of the application to the State government point of contact, if one has been designated for the State, at the same time it submits an application to the State Director. The State Director will:
(1) Review each application for completeness in accordance with § 1734.34, and notify the applicant, within 15 working days of receiving the application, of the results of this review, acknowledging a complete application, or citing any information that is incomplete. To be considered for a combination loan and grant, the applicant must submit any additional information requested to complete the application within 15 working days of the date of the State Director's written response. If the applicant fails to submit such information, the application will be returned to the applicant.
(2) Within 30 days of the determination of a completed application in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, review the application to determine suitability for financial assistance in accordance with § 1734.35, and other requirements of this subpart. Based on its review, the State Director will work with the applicant to resolve any questions or obtain any additional information. The applicant will be notified, in writing, of any additional information required to allow a financial assistance recommendation and will be provided a reasonable period of time to furnish the additional information.
(3) Based on the review in accordance with § 1734.35 and other requirements of this subpart, make a preliminary determination of suitability for financial assistance. A combination loan and grant recommendation will be prepared by the State Director with concurrence of the RUS telecommunications GFR that addresses the provisions of § 1734.34 and § 1734.35 and other applicable requirements of this subpart.
(4) If the application is determined suitable for further consideration by RUS, forward an original and electronic version of the application with a financial assistance recommendation, signed jointly, to the Assistant Administrator, Telecommunications Program, Rural Utilities Service, Washington, DC. The applicant will be notified by letter of this action. Upon receipt of the application from the State Director, RUS will conduct a review of the application and the financial assistance recommendation. A final determination will be made within 15 days. If the Administrator determines
(5) If the State Director determines that the application is not suitable for further consideration by RUS, notify the applicant with the reasons for this determination.
(c) Applications submitted by RUS Telecommunications GFRs or directly by applicants will be evaluated as they are submitted. All applicants must submit an original and an electronic version a completed application. The applicant must also submit a copy of the application to the State government point of contact, if one has been designated for the State, at the same time it submits an application to RUS. RUS will:
(1) Review each application for completeness in accordance with § 1734.34, and notify the applicant, within 15 working days of receiving the application, of the results of this review, acknowledging a complete application, or citing any information that is incomplete. To be considered for a combination loan and grant assistance, the applicant must submit any additional information requested to complete the application within 15 working days of the date of the RUS written response. If the applicant fails to submit such information, the application will be returned to the applicant.
(2) Within 30 days of the determination of a completed application in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, review the application to determine suitability for financial assistance in accordance with § 1734.35, and other requirements of this subpart. Based on its review, RUS will work with the applicant to resolve any questions or obtain any additional information. The applicant will be notified, in writing, of any additional information required to allow a financial assistance recommendation and will be provided a reasonable period of time to furnish the additional information.
(3) If the application is determined suitable for further consideration by RUS, conduct a review of the application and financial assistance recommendation. A final determination will be made within 15 days. If the Administrator determines that a combination loan and grant can be approved, the applicant will be notified. A combination loan and grant will be processed, approved, and serviced in accordance with §§ 1734.5 through 1734.12.
(4) If RUS determines that the application is not suitable for further consideration, notify the applicant with the reasons for this determination. The applicant will be able to appeal in accordance with § 1734.37.
RUS Electric and Telecommunications Borrowers may appeal a decision to reject their application. Any appeal must be made, in writing, within 10 days after the applicant is notified of the determination to deny the application. Appeals shall be submitted to the Administrator, RUS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1590, Washington, DC 20250-1590. Thereafter, the Administrator will review the appeal to determine whether to sustain, reverse, or modify the original determination. Final determinations will be made after consideration of all appeals. The Administrator's determination will be final. A copy of the Administrator's decision will be furnished promptly to the applicant.
A loan may be used by eligible organizations as defined in § 1734.4 for distance learning and telemedicine projects to finance 100 percent of the cost of approved purposes contained in § 1734.41 provided that no financial assistance may exceed the maximum amount for the year in which the loan is made. Entities seeking a loan must be able to provide security and execute a note with a maturity period greater than one year. The following entities are eligible for loans under this subpart:
(a) Organizations as defined in § 1734.4. If a RUS Telecommunications Borrower is seeking a loan, the borrower does not need to submit all of the financial security information required by § 1734.44(d). The borrower's latest financial report (Form 479) filed with RUS and any additional information relevant to the project, as determined by RUS, will suffice;
(b) Any non-profit or for-profit entity, public or private entity, urban or rural institution, or rural educational broadcaster, which proposes to provide and receive distance learning and telemedicine services to carry out the purposes of this subpart; or
(c) Any entity that contracts with an eligible organization in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section for constructing distance learning or telemedicine facilities for the purposes contained in § 1734.41, except for those purposes in § 1734.41(h).
(d) Applicants must meet the minimum eligibility requirement for determining the extent to which the project serves rural areas as contained in § 1734.26(b)
The following are approved purposes for loans:
(a) Acquiring, by lease or purchase, eligible equipment or facilities as defined in § 1734.3;
(b) Acquiring instructional programming;
(c) Providing technical assistance and instruction for using eligible equipment, including any related software; developing instructional programming; providing engineering or environmental studies relating to the establishment or expansion of the phase of the project that is being financed with the loan (financial assistance for this purpose shall not exceed 10 percent of the requested financial assistance);
(d) Paying for medical or educational equipment and facilities which are shown to be necessary to implement the project, including vehicles utilizing distance learning and telemedicine technology to deliver educational and health care services. The applicant must demonstrate that such items are necessary to meet the purposes under this subpart and financial assistance for such equipment and facilities is not available from other sources at a cost which would not adversely affect the economic viability of the project;
(e) Providing links between teachers and students or medical professionals who are located at the same facility, provided that such facility receives or provides distance learning or telemedicine services as part of a distance learning or telemedicine network which meets the purposes of this subpart;
(f) Providing for site development and alteration of buildings in order to meet the purposes of this subpart. Loans for this purpose must be necessary and incidental to the total amount of financial assistance requested;
(g) Purchasing of land, buildings, or building construction, where such costs are demonstrated necessary to construct distance learning and telemedicine facilities. The applicant must demonstrate that funding from other sources is not available at a cost which does not adversely impact the economic viability of the project as determined by the Administrator. Financial assistance
(h) Acquiring of telecommunications or broandband facilities provided that no telecommunications carrier will install such facilities under the Act or through other financial procedures within a reasonable time period and at a cost to the applicant that does not impact the economic viability of the project, as determined by the Administrator;
(i) Any project costs, except for salaries and administrative expenses, not included in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section, incurred during the first two years of operation after the financial assistance has been approved. The applicant must show that financing such costs are necessary for the establishment or continued operation of the project and that financing is not available for such costs elsewhere, including from the applicant's financial resources. The Administrator will determine whether such costs will be financed based on information submitted by the applicant. Loans shall not be made exclusively to finance such costs, and financing for such costs will not exceed 20 percent of the loan provided to a project under this section; and
(j) All of the costs needed to provide distance learning broadcasting to rural areas. Loans may be used to cover the costs of facilities and end-user equipment dedicated to providing educational broadcasting to rural areas for distance learning purposes. If the facilities are not 100 percent dedicated to broadcasting, a portion of the financing may be used to fund such facilities based on a percentage of use factor that approximates the distance learning broadcasting portion of use.
(a) Loans made under this subpart will not be provided to pay the costs of recurring or operating expenses incurred after two years from approval of the project except for leases (see § 1734.41).
(b) Loans made under this subpart will not be provided for any of the following costs:
(1) To purchase equipment that will be owned by the local exchange carrier or another telecommunications service provider, unless the applicant is the local exchange carrier or other telecommunications service provider;
(2) To duplicate facilities providing distance learning or telemedicine services in place or to reimburse the applicant or others for costs incurred prior to RUS' receipt of the completed application;
(3) For projects located in areas covered by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501
(4) To pay for salaries, wages, or administrative expenses; or
(5) For any purpose that the Administrator has not specifically approved.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in § 1734.12, funds shall not be used to finance a project, in part, when the success of the project is dependent upon the receipt of additional financial assistance under this subpart D or is dependent upon the receipt of other funding that is not assured.
Applications for loans under this subpart will be subject to limitations on the proposed amount of loans. The Administrator will establish the maximum amount of a loan available to an applicant under this subpart.
The following items are required to be submitted in support of an application for a loan:
(a)
(b) An executive summary of the project. The applicant must provide RUS with a general project overview that addresses each of the following 9 categories:
(1) A description of why the project is needed;
(2) An explanation of how the applicant will address the need (see paragraph (b)(1) of this section), why the applicant requires financial assistance, the types of educational or medical services to be offered by the project, and the benefits to the rural residents;
(3) A description of the applicant, documenting eligibility in accordance with § 1734.4;
(4) An explanation of the total project cost including a breakdown of the loan required and the source of funding, if applicable, for the remainder of the project;
(5) A statement specifying whether the project provides predominantly distance learning or telemedicine services as defined in § 1734.3. If the project provides both distance learning and telemedicine services, the applicant must identify the predominant use of the system;
(6) A general overview of the telecommunications system to be developed, including the types of equipment, technologies, and facilities used;
(7) A description of the participating hubs and end user sites and the number of rural residents which will be served by the project at each end user site;
(8) A certification by the applicant that facilities funded by a loan do not duplicate adequate established telemedicine or distance learning services;
(9) A listing of the location of each end user site (city, town, village, borough, or rural area plus the State).
(c) A scope of work. The scope of work must include, at a minimum:
(1) The specific activities to be performed under the project;
(2) Who will carry out the activities;
(3) The time-frames for accomplishing the project objectives and activities; and
(4) A budget for capital expenditures reflecting the line item costs for the loan and any other sources of funds for the project.
(d) Financial information. The applicant must show its financial ability to complete the project; show project feasibility; and provide evidence that it can execute a note for a loan for a maturity period greater than one year. For educational institutions participating in a project application (including all members of a consortium), the financial data must reflect revenue and expense reports and balance sheet reports, reflecting net worth, for the most recent annual reporting period preceding the date of the application. For medical institutions participating in a project application (including all members of a consortium), the financial data must include income statement and balance sheet reports, reflecting net worth, for the most recent completed fiscal year preceding the date of the application. When the applicant is a partnership, company, corporation, or other entity, current balance sheets, reflecting net worth, are needed from each of the entities that has at least a 20 percent interest in such partnership, company, corporation or other entity. When the applicant is a consortium, a current balance sheet, reflecting net worth, is needed from each member of the consortium and from each of the entities that has at least a 20 percent interest in such member of the consortium.
(1) Applicants must include sufficient pro-forma financial data which adequately reflects the financial capability of project participants and the project as a whole to continue a sustainable project for a minimum of 10 years and repay the requested loan. This documentation should include sources of sufficient income or revenues to pay operating expenses including telecommunications access and toll
(2) A list of property which will be used as collateral to secure repayment of the proposed loan. The applicant shall purchase and own collateral that secures the loan free from liens or security interests and take all actions necessary to perfect a first lien in the collateral that secures the loan. RUS will consider as adequate security a loan guarantee by a telecommunications or electric borrower or by another qualified party. Additional forms of security, including letters of credit, real estate, or any other items will be considered. RUS will determine the adequacy of the security offered.
(3) As applicable, a depreciation schedule covering all assets of the project. Those assets for which a loan is being requested should be clearly indicated.
(4) For each hub and end user site, the applicant must identify and provide reasonable evidence of each source of revenue. If the projection relies on cost sharing arrangements among hub and end user sites, the applicant must provide evidence of agreements made among project participants.
(5) For applicants eligible under § 1734.4(a)(1), an explanation of the economic analysis justifying the rate structure to ensure that the benefit, including cost saving, of the financial assistance is passed through to the other persons receiving telemedicine or distance learning services.
(e) A statement of experience. The applicant must provide a written narrative (not exceeding three single spaced pages) describing its demonstrated capability and experience, if any, in operating an educational or health care endeavor and any project similar to the project. Experience in a similar project is desirable but not required.
(f) A telecommunications system plan. A telecommunications system plan, consisting of the following (the items in paragraphs (f)(4) and (5) of this section are required only when the applicant is requesting a loan for telecommunications transmission facilities):
(1) The capabilities of the telecommunications terminal equipment, including a description of the specific equipment which will be used to deliver the proposed service. The applicant must document discussions with various technical sources which could include consultants, engineers, product vendors, or internal technical experts, provide detailed cost estimates for operating and maintaining the end user equipment and provide evidence that alternative equipment and technologies were evaluated.
(2) A listing of the proposed purchases or leases of telecommunications terminal equipment, telecommunications transmission facilities, data terminal equipment, interactive video equipment, computer hardware and software systems, and components that process data for transmission via telecommunications, computer network components, communication satellite ground station equipment, or any other elements of the telecommunications system designed to further the purposes of this subpart, that the applicant intends to build or fund using a loan.
(3) A description of the consultations with the appropriate telecommunications carriers (including other interexchange carriers, cable television operators, enhanced service providers, providers of satellite services, and telecommunications equipment manufacturers and distributors) and the anticipated role of such providers in the proposed telecommunications system.
(4) Results of discussions with local exchange carriers serving the project area addressing the concerns contained in § 1734.41(h).
(5) The capabilities of the telecommunications transmission facilities, including bandwidth, networking topology, switching, multiplexing, standards, and protocols for intra-networking and open systems architecture (the ability to effectively communicate with other networks). In addition, the applicant must explain the manner in which the transmission facilities will deliver the proposed services. For example, for medical diagnostics, the applicant might indicate whether or not a guest or other diagnosticians can join the network from locations off the network. For educational services, indicate whether or not all hub and end-user sites are able to simultaneously hear in real-time and see each other or the instructional material in real-time. The applicant must include detailed cost estimates for operating and maintaining the network, and include evidence that alternative delivery methods and systems were evaluated.
(g) Compliance with other Federal statutes. The applicant must provide evidence of compliance with other Federal statutes and regulations including, but not limited to the following:
(1) E.O. 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by E.O. 11375 and as supplemented by regulations contained in 41 CFR part 60;
(2) Architectural barriers;
(3) Flood hazard area precautions;
(4) Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970;
(5) Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998 (41 U.S.C. 8101
(6) E.O.s 12549 and 12689, Debarment and Suspension, 2 CFR part 180, which is adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 417;
(7) Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment (31 U.S.C. 1352), 2 CFR part 418.
(h) Environmental review requirements.
(1) The applicant must provide details of the project's impact on the environment and historic properties, in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970. The application must contain a separate section entitled “Environmental Impact of the Project.”
(2) The applicant must use any programmatic environmental agreements, available from RUS, in effect at the time of filing to assist in complying with the requirements of this section.
(i) Evidence of legal authority and existence. The applicant must provide evidence of its legal existence and authority to enter into debt with RUS and perform the activities proposed under the loan application.
(j) Federal debt certification. The applicants must provide a certification that it is not delinquent on any obligation owed to the government (31 U.S.C. 3720B).
(k) Supplemental information. The applicant should provide any additional information it considers relevant to the project and likely to be helpful in determining the extent to which the project would further the purposes of this subpart.
(l) Additional information required by RUS. The applicant must provide any additional information RUS determines is necessary to adequately evaluate the application. Modifications or changes, including changes in the loan amount requested, may be requested in any project described in an application submitted under this subpart.
(a) Loans will be approved based on availability of funds, the financial feasibility of the project in accordance with § 1734.44(d), the services to be provided which demonstrate that the project meets the general requirements of this subpart, the design of the project; costs; location; and other characteristics of the application.
(b) RUS will determine, from the information submitted with each application for a loan, whether the application achieves sufficient priority, based on the criteria set forth in the 1996 Act, to receive a loan from funds available for the fiscal year. If such priority is achieved, RUS will process the loan application on a first-in, first-out basis, provided that the total amount of applications on-hand for loans does not exceed 90 percent of the total loan funding available for the fiscal year. At such time as the total amount of applications eligible for loans, if such applications were approved, exceeds 90 percent of amount of loan funding available, RUS will process the remaining applications using the evaluation criteria referenced in § 1734.26.
(c) A loan will not be approved if it is determined that:
(1) The applicant's proposal does not indicate financial feasibility, or is not adequately secured in accordance with the requirements of § 1734.44(d);
(2) The applicant's proposal indicates technical flaws, which, in the opinion of RUS, would prevent successful implementation, or operation of the project; or
(3) Any other aspect of the applicant's proposal fails to adequately address any requirements of this subpart or contains inadequacies which would, in the opinion of RUS, undermine the ability of the project to meet the general purpose of this subpart or comply with policies of the DLT program contained in § 1734.2.
(d) RUS will provide the applicant with a statement of any determinations made with regard to paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section. The applicant will be provided 15 days from the date of the RUS letter to respond, provide clarification, or make any adjustments or corrections to the project. If, in the opinion of the Administrator, the applicant fails to adequately respond to any determinations or other findings made by the Administrator, the loan will not be approved, and the applicant will be notified of this determination. If the applicant does not agree with this finding an appeal may be filed in accordance with § 1734.47.
(a) RUS will accept applications for loans submitted by RUS Telecommunications GFRs, by Rural Development State Directors, or by applicants themselves. Applications for loans under this subpart may be filed at any time and will be evaluated as received on a non-competitive basis.
(b) Applications submitted to the State Director, Rural Development, in the State serving the headquarters of the project will be evaluated as they are submitted. All applicants must submit an original and an electronic version of a completed application. The applicant must also submit a copy of the application to the State government point of contact, if one has been designated for the State, at the same time it submits an application to the State Director. The State Director will:
(1) Review each application for completeness in accordance with § 1734.44, and notify the applicant, within 15 working days of receiving the application, of the results of this review, acknowledging a complete application, or citing any information that is incomplete. To be considered for a loan, the applicant must submit any additional information requested to complete the application within 15 working days of the date of the State Director's written response. If the applicant fails to submit such information, the application will be returned to the applicant.
(2) Within 30 days of the determination of a completed application in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, review the application to determine suitability for financial assistance in accordance with § 1734.45, and other requirements of this subpart. Based on its review, the State Director will work with the applicant to resolve any questions or obtain any additional information. The applicant will be notified, in writing, of any additional information required to allow a financial assistance recommendation and will be provided a reasonable period of time to furnish the additional information.
(3) Based on the review in accordance with § 1734.45 and other requirements of this subpart, make a preliminary determination of suitability for financial assistance. A loan recommendation will be prepared by the State Director with concurrence of the RUS telecommunications GFR that addresses the provisions of §§ 1734.44 and 1734.45 and other applicable requirements of this subpart.
(4) If the application is determined suitable for further consideration by RUS, forward an original and an electronic version of the application with a loan recommendation, signed jointly, to the Assistant Administrator, Telecommunications Program, Rural Utilities Service, Washington, DC. The applicant will be notified by letter of this action. Upon receipt of the application from the State Director, RUS will conduct a cursory review of the application and the recommendation. A final determination will be made within 15 days. If the Administrator determines that a loan can be approved, the State Director will be notified and the State Director will notify the applicant. Applications for loans will be processed, and approved loans serviced, in accordance with §§ 1734.5 through 1734.12.
(5) If the State Director determines that the application is not suitable for further consideration by RUS, notify the applicant with the reasons for this determination.
(c) Applications submitted by RUS Telecommunications GFRs or directly by applicants will be evaluated as they are submitted. All applicants must submit an original and an electronic version of a completed application. The applicant must also submit a copy of the application to the State government point of contact, if one has been designated for the State, at the same time it submits an application to the RUS. RUS will:
(1) Review each application for completeness in accordance with § 1734.44, and notify the applicant, within 15 working days of receiving the application, of the results of this review, acknowledging a complete application, or citing any information that is incomplete. To be considered for a loan, the applicant must submit any additional information requested to complete the application within 15 working days of the date of the RUS written response. If the applicant fails to submit such information, the application will be returned to the applicant.
(2) Within 30 days of the determination of a completed application in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, review the application to determine suitability for financial assistance in accordance with this subpart. Based on its review, RUS will work with the applicant to resolve any questions or obtain any additional information. The applicant will be notified, in writing, of any additional information required to allow a financial assistance recommendation and will be provided a reasonable period of time to furnish the additional information.
(3) If the application is determined suitable for further consideration by RUS, conduct a review of the application and financial assistance recommendation. A final determination will be made within 15 days. If the Administrator determines that a loan can be approved, the applicant will be notified. Applications will be processed, and approved loans serviced, in
(4) If RUS determines that the application is not suitable for further consideration, notify the applicant with the reasons for this determination. The applicant will be offered appeal rights in accordance with § 1734.47.
RUS Electric and Telecommunications Borrowers may appeal a decision to reject their application. Any appeal must be made, in writing, within 10 days after the applicant is notified of the determination to deny the application. Appeals shall be submitted to the Administrator, RUS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1590, Washington, DC 20250-1590. Thereafter, the Administrator will review the appeal to determine whether to sustain, reverse, or modify the original determination. Final determinations will be made after consideration of all appeals. The Administrator's determination will be final. A copy of the Administrator's decision will be furnished promptly to the applicant.
7 U.S.C. 901
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(v)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition on these products, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. This AD was prompted by reports indicating that certain exit signs have a hydrogen isotope that decays over time, causing the signs to lose their brightness. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective December 12, 2017.
We must receive comments on this AD by January 11, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
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.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2012-0238, dated November 9, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 airplanes. The MCAI states:
A number of Fokker F.27 aeroplanes have exit signs installed to locate the emergency exits. A number of these signs are not electrically powered, but are self-illuminated by means of a hydrogen isotope known as Tritium. As this isotope decays over time, these signs will lose their brightness.
To remain compliant with regulations, Tritium exit signs should be replaced when their brightness has deteriorated below accepted levels. The established service life for the Tritium powered exit signs is 7 years. Currently, the F.27 maintenance program does not include a replacement task for exit signs containing Tritium.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in insufficiently bright exit signs, possibly preventing safe evacuation during an emergency, which could result in injury to occupants.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the replacement of the affected Tritium powered exit signs. Depending on the aeroplane configuration, the replacement exit signs must be either photo-luminescent or Tritium powered. In addition, this [EASA] AD introduces a life limit for the Tritium signs and requires repetitive maintenance tasks for the photo-luminescent signs. [The EASA AD provides an option to revise the airplane maintenance program.]
You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
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
Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less 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
Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:
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 becomes effective December 12, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 10425 through 10692 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 11, Placards and markings.
This AD was prompted by reports indicating that certain exit signs have a hydrogen isotope that decays over time, causing the signs to lose their brightness. We are issuing this AD to prevent insufficiently illuminated exit signs, which could possibly prevent safe evacuation during an emergency and cause injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the actions at the times specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2012-0238, dated November 9, 2012.
The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards 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 International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2012-0238, dated November 9, 2012, for related information. You may examine the MCAI 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.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace at Alexander City, AL, due to the decommissioning of the Alexander City non-directional radio beacon (NDB), which requires airspace reconfiguration at Thomas C Russell Field Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.
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
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 amends Class E airspace at Thomas C Russell Field Airport, Alexander City, AL, to support IFR operations at the airport.
On June 7, 2017, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7 mile radius of Thomas C Russell Field Airport, Alexander City, AL, due to the decommissioning of the Alexander City NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. The changes ensure the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of Thomas C. Russell Field Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, technical amendment.
This final rule technical amendment amends the legal description of Class E Airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hawthorne Industrial Airport, Hawthorne, NV, to correct a clerical error. The airspace legal description inadvertently omits the word “radius” and defined the airspace boundary “within 3.6 miles of” instead of “within a 3.6-mile radius of” the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, November 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Industrial Airport, Hawthorne, NV, to support IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA recently published a rule in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by correcting a clerical error in the regulatory text of Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hawthorne Industrial Airport, Hawthorne, NV. The text is corrected to read “That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.6-mile radius of Hawthorne Industrial Airport. . . .”
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (5
Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to determine an effective date of less than 30 days after publication for good cause found and published with the rule. In consideration of the need to correct the airspace description for Hawthorne Industrial Airport and to avoid confusion on the part of pilots flying in the vicinity of airport, the FAA finds good cause for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days in order to promote the safe and efficient handling of air traffic in the area.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.6-mile radius of Hawthorne Industrial Airport and within 2 miles each side of a line extending from lat. 38°32′25″ N., long. 118°37′26″ W.; to lat. 38°28′43″ N., long. 118°27′48″ W.; to lat. 38°28′49″ N., long. 118°24′19″ W.; to lat. 38°32′06″ N., long. 118°18′07″ W.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface at Pueblo Memorial Airport, Pueblo, CO. Also, the part-time Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) information is removed from Class E airspace designated as an extension, and the geographic coordinates for Pueblo Memorial Airport in the associated Class D and E airspace areas are amended to match the FAA's aeronautical database. A biennial review found these changes are necessary to accommodate airspace redesign for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System. An editorial change also is made to the Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace legal descriptions replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement.”
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.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the
On August 3, 2017, the FAA published in the
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Pueblo Memorial Airport, Pueblo, CO.
Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace are reduced to within a 5.1-mile radius (from 5.6 miles) of Pueblo Memorial Airport.
The Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area east of the airport is modified to a 7.2 mile wide segment (from 7 miles) extending to 11.3 miles (from 11.4 miles) east of the airport; the segment west of the airport is removed as it is not necessary to support current operations; and a segment is established north of the airport within 1.6 miles west and 1.3 miles east of the 358° bearing from the airport extending from the 5.1 mile radius to 6.7 miles north of the airport.
Also, this action eliminates the following language from the legal description of Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area at the airport: “This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory,” since the airspace remains in effect full time.
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet is reduced to within a 7.6-mile radius of the Pueblo Memorial Airport with extensions to 12 miles north and 12.3 miles east of the airport (from a 21.8-mile radius with an extension to 28.2 miles east). Also, this action removes Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface since the airspace is wholly contained within the Denver Class E en route airspace area and duplication is not necessary.
Additionally, this action updates the geographic coordinates for Pueblo Memorial Airport and replaces the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement” in the associated Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions. This airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 7,200 feet MSL within a 5.1-mile radius of Pueblo Memorial Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5.1-mile radius of Pueblo
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 3.6 miles each side of the 081° bearing from Pueblo Memorial Airport extending from the 5.1-mile radius of the airport to 11.3 miles east of the airport, and within 1.6 miles west and 1.3 miles east of the 358° bearing from the airport extending from the 5.1-mile radius of the airport to 6.7 miles north of the airport.
That airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.6-mile radius of Pueblo Memorial Airport, and within 2.2 miles west and 1.8 miles east of the 358° bearing from the airport extending to 12 miles north of the airport, and within 3.8 miles each side of the 081° bearing from the airport extending to 12.3 miles east of the airport.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation pertaining to the Charleston Harbor Christmas Parade of Boats on December 9, 2017. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Charleston Harbor Christmas Parade of Boats. During the enforcement period, and in accordance with previously issued special local regulations, no person or vessel may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the designated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
The regulation in 33 CFR 100.701, Table to § 100.701, Item (g)(6) will be enforced on December 9, 2017 from 4 p.m. until 8 p.m.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LT Justin Heck, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the Charleston Harbor Christmas Parade of Boats in the Table to 33 CFR 100.701, item (g)(6), from 4 p.m. through 8 p.m. on December 9, 2017.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.701, no vessels or people may enter into, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area, unless authorized to do so by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Only event sponsors, designated participants, and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the regulated area. This rule creates a regulated area that will encompass a portion of the waterways during the parade transit from Charleston Harbor Anchorage A through Bennis Reach, Horse Reach, Hog Island Reach, Town Creek Lower Reach, Ashley River, and finishing at City Marina. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of parade participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.701 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation; cancellation.
The Coast Guard is canceling the temporary deviation concerning the Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges) Bridge across the Rockaway Inlet, mile 3.0, at Queens, NY. The deviation cancellation is necessary to accommodate Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA) (the bridge owner) unexpected emergency repairs requiring a complete closure of the Bridge and an extension of time for their completion. This cancellation is necessary so a temporary interim rule may be approved due to the requested extension exceeding the 180 day limit for deviations. Existing federal regulations do not allow back-to-back deviations.
The temporary deviation published on July 6, 2017 (82 FR 31255), is cancelled as of 12:01 a.m. on November 27, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0595 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy K. Leung-Yee, Bridge Management Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4336, email
On July 6, 2017, we published a temporary deviation entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Marine Parkway Bridge, Jamaica Bay, Queens, NY” in the
During the recent replacement/rehabilitation of lift span systems, water was discovered inside the power and communication cables from the main electrical rooms on the lower level of the towers to the machinery rooms at the tops of the towers. In addition,
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges announce a cost of living adjustment (COLA) in the royalty rates that commercial and noncommercial noninteractive webcasters pay for eligible transmissions pursuant to the statutory licenses for the public performance of and for the making of ephemeral reproductions of sound recordings.
Kimberly Whittle, Attorney Advisor, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or by email at
Sections 112(e) and 114(f) of the Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, create statutory licenses for certain digital performances of sound recordings and the making of ephemeral reproductions to facilitate transmission of those sound recordings. On May 2, 2016, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) adopted final regulations governing the rates and terms of copyright royalty payments under those licenses for the license period 2016-2020 for performances of sound recordings via eligible transmissions by commercial and noncommercial noninteractive webcasters.
Pursuant to those regulations, at least 25 days before January 1 of each year from 2017 to 2020, the Judges shall publish in the
The adjustment in the royalty fee shall be based on a calculation of the percentage increase in the CPI-U from the CPI-U published in November 2015 (237.838), according to the formula (1 + (C
The 2018 rate for eligible transmission of sound recordings by commercial webcasters is a rate of $0.0023 per subscription performance and a rate of $0.0018 per nonsubscription performance.
Application of the increase to rates for noncommercial webcasters results in a 2018 rate of $0.0018 per performance for all digital audio transmissions in excess of 159,140 ATH in a month on a channel or station.
As provided in 37 CFR 380.1(d), the royalty fee for making ephemeral recordings under section 112 of the Copyright Act to facilitate digital transmission of sound recordings under section 114 of the Copyright Act is included in the section 114 royalty fee and comprises 5% of the total fee.
Copyright, Sound recordings.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Judges amend part 380 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114(f), 804(b)(3).
(a)
(1)
(2)
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges announce a cost of living adjustment (COLA) of 2.0% in the royalty rates satellite carriers pay for a compulsory license under the Copyright Act. The COLA is based on the change in the Consumer Price Index from October 2016 to October 2017.
Kimberly Whittle, Attorney Advisor, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or by email at
The satellite carrier compulsory license establishes a statutory copyright licensing scheme for the distant retransmission of television programming by satellite carriers. 17 U.S.C. 119. Congress created the license in 1988 and has reauthorized the license for additional five-year periods, most recently with the passage of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, Public Law 113-200.
On August 31, 2010, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) adopted rates for the section 119 compulsory license for the 2010-2014 term.
The change in the cost of living as determined by the CPI-U during the period from the most recent index published before December 1, 2016, to the most recent index published before December 1, 2017, is +2.0%.
Copyright, Satellite, Television.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Judges amend part 386 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
17 U.S.C. 119(c), 801(b)(1).
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) 2018: 28 cents per subscriber per month.
(2) * * *
(ix) 2018: 58 cents per subscriber per month.
Postal Service
Final rule.
On October 6, 2017, the Postal Service (USPS®) filed a notice of mailing services price adjustments with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) in Docket No. R2018-1. On October 13, 2017 the Postal Service published a proposed rule containing the revisions to
Effective: January 21, 2018.
Jacqueline Erwin at (202) 268-2158, or Lizbeth Dobbins at (202) 268-3789.
On November 9, 2017, the PRC found that the price adjustments proposed by the Postal Service may take effect as planned. The price adjustments and DMM revisions are scheduled to become effective on January 21, 2018. Final prices are available under Docket No. R2018-1 (Order No. 4215) on the Postal Regulatory Commission's Web site at
The Postal Service received 1 formal comment on the October 13, 2017 proposed rule.
One comment requested that the Postal Service reconsider changing APO/FPO/DPO mail processing at Chicago ISC, based on needing more study on negative, financial consequences on US Service members, their families and businesses that serve them.
The Postal Service is revising Zone charts for Priority Mail to APO/FPO/DPO, which is processed at the Chicago ISC, based on operational needs. This revision reflects current operations and is consistent with Title 39 and former Postal Rate Commission precedent regarding the alignment of rates and costs for mail classification. It is necessary to align rates and costs for Priority Mail addressed to APO/FPO/DPO destinations, and eliminate inconsistencies between rates and costs for such Priority Mail.
The Proposed Rule is not a sudden, unforeseeable change in policy. The transfer of processing operations to the Chicago ISC, and the resulting inconsistency between Zone classification and transportation costs, occurred in 2013. For over three years, mailers had an opportunity to assess the potential impact of this change on future operations, and some businesses responded to the change by relocating their operations in anticipation of a potential reclassification of zones necessary to align rates and costs.
The resulting changes to DMM 608 are shown below.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
The Postal Service adopts the following changes to
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
These additional standards apply to Bound Printed Matter:
[
b. Bound Printed Matter may not weigh more than 20 ounces (except under 705.15).
Maximum weight limits are as follows:
[
d. For Bound Printed Matter, 20 ounces (except under 705.15).
a. For the purposes of computing postal zone information, except for items 9.2b and 9.2c, the following table applies to MPOs not listed in L005.
[
b. The postage prices for zoned mail transported between the United States, the Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, or U.S. territories or possessions, including the Freely Associated States on the one hand, and MPOs on the other, or, among the MPOs, are the applicable zone prices for mail between the place of mailing or delivery and the city of the postmaster serving the MPO concerned.
[
* * * When sortation under this option is performed, after completing required or optional carrier route pallets (if any), mailers must prepare all merged 5-digit scheme, and merged 5-digit pallets that are possible in the mailing based on the volume of mail to the destination using L001 and/or the City State Product. * * *
[
a.
1.
2.
b.
1.
2.
[
1.
2.
[
Mailers must prepare pallets of bundles in the manner and sequence listed below and under 8.0. When sortation under this option is performed, after completing required or optional carrier route pallets (if any), mailers must prepare all merged 5-digit scheme and merged 5-digit pallets that are possible in the mailing based on the volume of mail to the destination using L001 and/or the City State Product. * * *
[
a.
1.
2.
b.
1.
2.
[
c.
1.
2.
[
* * * When sortation under this option is performed, after completing required or optional carrier route pallets (if any), mailers must prepare all merged 5-digit scheme, 5-digit scheme, and merged 5-digit pallets that are possible in the mailing based on the volume of mail to the destination using L001 and the 5% threshold, as applicable. * * *
Prepare and label pallets as follows:
[
a.
1.
2.
1.
2.
[
1.
2.
[
[
* * * When sortation under this option is performed after completing required or optional carrier route pallets (if any), mailers must prepare all merged 5-digit scheme, and merged 5-digit pallets that are possible in the mailing based on the volume of mail to the destination using L001 and the 5% threshold. * * *
[
a.
1.
2.
1.
2.
[
1.
2.
[
e. After completing all possible required or optional carrier route pallets (if any), mailers must prepare all merged 5-digit scheme and 5-digit scheme pallets according to standards in 13.1.5.
[
* * * When sortation under this option is performed, after completing required or optional carrier route pallets (if any), mailers must prepare all merged 5-digit scheme, 5-digit scheme, and merged 5-digit pallets that are possible in the mailing based on the volume of mail to the destination (8.0) using L001, the City State Product, and the 5% threshold (13.1.4), as applicable. * * * Prepare and label pallets as follows:
[
a.
1.
2.
[
1.
2.
[
* * * When sortation under this option is performed after completing required or optional carrier route pallets (if any), mailers must prepare all merged 5-digit scheme, and merged 5-digit pallets that are possible in the mailing based on the volume of mail to the destination using L001, the City State Product, and the 5% threshold. Mailers must label pallets according to the Line 1 and Line 2 information listed below and under 8.6.
[
a.
1.
2.
[
c.
1.
2.
[
[
Authorized mailers may combine USPS Marketing Mail flats, Bound Printed Matter flats, and Periodicals flats in a single mailing as follows:
[
a. Each mailpiece must meet the standards in 240 for USPS Marketing Mail, 260 for Bound Printed Matter and 207 for Periodicals. Periodicals publications must be authorized or pending original or additional entry at the office of mailing.
[
b. * * * For exceptions to bundling contact the Pricing and Classification Service Center (see 608.8.0).
[
e. Each mailing must include at least 200 pieces or 50 pounds of USPS Marketing Mail and/or at least 300 pieces of Bound Printed Matter mail, when USPS Marketing Mail and/or Bound Printed Matter are combined within a mailing.
[
h. Each comailing containing Bound Printed Matter flats must:
1. Be entered at a destination sectional center facility (DSCF) or a destination delivery unit (DDU) (Presorted DDU prices are not available for flats that weigh 1 pound or less).
a. When prepared and entered at a destination sectional center facility (DSCF) at 5-digit, 3-digit/SCF level pallets, BPM pieces should weigh no more than 20 ounces.
1. Heavier BPM pieces, (pieces greater than 20 ounces and less than 24 ounces) in comail can only be placed in CR level bundles on a pallet included in no less than SCF/3D sortation entered at an SCF.
2. Not exceed the maximum weight of 24 ounces per piece within the same bundle, when comailed with Periodicals pieces.
a. The maximum number of heavier pieces would be no more than half of each bundle. (Half of the bundle can have BPM pieces that weigh 20-24 ounces).
b. The maximum bundle weight is 20 pounds.
[
The Postal Service processes combined mailings of USPS Marketing Mail, Bound Printed Matter, and Periodicals flats to the service standards of USPS Marketing Mail.
[
Postage for all USPS Marketing Mail and Bound Printed Matter pieces must be paid with permit imprint using a special postage payment system in 2.0 through 4.0 at the Post Office location serving the mailer's plant. * * *
* * * In addition, mailers must provide:
[
f. Any additional documentation to support postage payment system records, if requested.
[
A mailer must submit a written request to the manager, Business Mailer Support (see 608.8.1 for address) to combine mailings of USPS Marketing Mail flats, Bound Printed Matter flats, and Periodicals flats. * * * When requested, a mailer must submit a copy of a notification document signed and dated by the Periodicals publisher, acknowledging the mailer's participation in a combined mailing of USPS Marketing Mail and Periodicals and the potential for the mailpieces to receive deferred USPS handling. * * *
[
Apply prices based on the standards in 240 for USPS Marketing Mail and 260 for Bound Printed Matter flats. * * *
[
[
Each USPS Marketing Mail, Bound Printed Matter, and Periodicals
[
[
Each USPS Marketing Mail, Bound Printer Matter, and Periodicals mailpiece prepared under a combined mailing of USPS Marketing Mail flats, Bound Printed Matter flats, and Periodicals flats must be identified as being part of a mixed class mailing through the use of an optional endorsement line (OEL) in accordance with standards in 203.7.1.8. Post-print consolidators who have mailings of USPS Marketing Mail and Bound Printed Matter, using Permit Imprint may include a “Co-Class” marking.
[
When combining USPS Marketing Mail, Bound Printed Matter, and Periodicals flats within the same bundle or combining bundles of USPS Marketing Mail flats, Bound Printed Matter flats, and bundles of Periodicals flats on pallets, bundles must be placed on pallets. For labeling, '”MKT/BPM/PER FLTS”, as applicable' means to label each individual pallet based on the classes of mailpieces on that individual pallet. As an example, in a combined mailing of USPS Marketing Mail, Bound Printed Matter, and Periodicals flats, some pallets may be labeled “MKT/BPM/PER” while others might properly be labeled “MKT/BPM,” “MKT/PER,” “BPM/PER,” or even “MKT,” “BPM,” or “PER.”
Preparation, sequence and labeling:
a.
[
2.
b.
[
2.
c.
[
2.
d.
[
2.
e.
[
2.
f.
[
2.
g.
[
2.
[
2.
[
[
2.
[
[
2.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to adverse comments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the direct final rule for “Approval of Nebraska Air Quality Implementation Plans; Adoption of a New Chapter Under the Nebraska Administrative Code” published in the
The direct final rule published at 82 FR 46415, October 5, 2017, is withdrawn effective November 27, 2017.
Greg Crable, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7391, or by email at
Due to adverse comments, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule to approve revisions to the Nebraska State Implementation Plan (SIP). In the direct final rule published on October 5, 2017 (82 FR 46415), we stated that if we received adverse comment by November 6, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received adverse comments. EPA will address the comments in a subsequent final action
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best available retrofit technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures for the commercial hook-and-line component for golden tilefish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS projects commercial hook-and-line landings for golden tilefish will reach the hook-and-line component's commercial annual catch limit (ACL) on November 29, 2017. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial hook-and-line component for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic EEZ on November 29, 2017, and it will remain closed until the start of the next fishing year on January 1, 2018. This closure is necessary to protect the golden tilefish resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, November 29, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
On April 23, 2013, NMFS published a final rule for Amendment 18B to the FMP (78 FR 23858). Amendment 18B to the FMP established a longline endorsement program for the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery and allocated the commercial golden tilefish ACL among two gear types, the longline and hook-and-line components.
The commercial ACL (equivalent to the commercial quota) for the hook-and-line component for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic is 135, 324 lb (61,382 kg), gutted weight, for the current fishing year, January 1 through December 31, 2017, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(2)(ii).
Under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial hook-and-line component for golden tilefish when the hook-and-line component's commercial ACL has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial ACL for the hook-and-line component for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic will be reached by November 29, 2017. Accordingly, the commercial hook-and-line component for South Atlantic golden tilefish is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, November 29, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.
The commercial longline component for South Atlantic golden tilefish closed on May 9, 2017, for the remainder of the current fishing year, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018 (82 FR 21316; May 8, 2017). Therefore, because the commercial longline component is already closed, and NMFS is closing the commercial hook-and-line component through this temporary rule, all commercial fishing for South Atlantic golden tilefish is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, November 29, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.
The operator of a vessel with a valid Federal commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having golden tilefish on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such golden tilefish prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, November 29, 2017. During the closure, the sale or purchase of golden tilefish taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of golden tilefish that were harvested by hook-and-line, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, November 29, 2017, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. For a person on board a vessel for which a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for golden tilefish would apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c).
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic golden tilefish and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial hook-and-line component for golden tilefish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL for the hook-and-line component, and there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect golden tilefish. Prior notice and
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Bering Sea subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2017 Pacific Ocean perch total allowable catch (TAC) in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), November 21, 2017, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2017.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2017 Pacific ocean perch TAC in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI is 9,350 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017).
The Regional Administrator has determined that the 2017 TAC for Pacific Ocean perch in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 9,335 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 15 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. Consequently, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI.
After the effective date 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 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 directed fishing closure of Pacific Ocean perch in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as 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
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory basis.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing a regulatory basis to support a rulemaking that would amend the NRC's regulations for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. The NRC's goals in amending these regulations would be to provide for an efficient decommissioning process; reduce the need for exemptions from existing regulations; address other decommissioning issues deemed relevant by the NRC staff; and support the principles of good regulation, including openness, clarity, and reliability.
The regulatory basis is available on November 27, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0070 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:
•
•
•
Alysia G. Bone, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-1034, email:
On December 30, 2014, the Commission directed the NRC staff to proceed with a rulemaking on power reactor decommissioning in the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for SECY-14-0118, “Request by Duke Energy Florida, Inc., for Exemptions from Certain Emergency Planning Requirements” (ADAMS Accession No. ML14364A111). The Commission also stated that the rulemaking should address: Issues discussed in SECY-00-0145, “Integrated Rulemaking Plan for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning” (ADAMS Accession No. ML003721626), such as the graded approach to emergency preparedness (EP); lessons learned from the plants that have already gone or are currently going through the decommissioning process; the advisability of requiring a licensee's post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR) to be approved by the NRC; the appropriateness of maintaining the three existing options for decommissioning and the timeframes associated with those options; the appropriate role of state and local governments and non-governmental stakeholders in the decommissioning process; and any other issues deemed relevant by the NRC staff.
The NRC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the
In the regulatory basis, the NRC staff concludes that it has sufficient justification to proceed with rulemaking in the areas of EP, physical security, cyber security, drug and alcohol testing, training requirements for certified fuel handlers (CFHs), DTFs, offsite and onsite financial protection requirements and indemnity agreements, and application of the backfit rule. Further, the NRC staff is recommending rulemaking: (1) to require that decommissioning documents in § 50.54(bb) of title 10 of the
Additionally in this regulatory basis, the NRC staff recommends guidance development and inspection procedure updates for minimum staffing of non-licensed operators and aging management of certain SSCs. The NRC staff also determined that fatigue management would not be addressed in this decommissioning rule.
In the regulatory basis, the NRC staff reiterated conclusions from the draft regulatory basis that regulatory activities other than rulemaking—such as guidance development—can be pursued to address the appropriate role of State and local governments in the decommissioning process, the level of NRC review of the PSDAR, and the 60-year limit for power reactor decommissioning.
In addition to the regulatory basis, staff plans to publish a revised preliminary draft of the regulatory analysis, which will update and refine the analysis of costs and benefits.
The NRC staff plans to publish a proposed rule for public comment in 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of early cracking on certain holes of the crossbeam splicing at certain fuselage frames. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of the fastener holes in certain fuselage frames, and depending on airplane configuration, would provide an optional terminating action to the repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 11, 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 Airbus, Airworthiness Office-EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0139, dated July 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Model A318 series airplanes; A319 series airplanes; A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Following addition of a new airworthiness limitation item (ALI) task 531110 in the
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the airframe.
To allow an earlier crack detection, Airbus decided to transfer the repetitive inspections from ALI task 531110 to Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1286, later revised, including new recommended inspection thresholds.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive special detailed [rototest] inspections (SDI) of the two upper rows of fasteners of the crossbeam splicing at FR16 and FR20, on both LH and RH sides, [installation of new fasteners on crack-free frames, related investigative and corrective actions,] and, depending on aeroplane configuration, provides an optional terminating action to the repetitive inspections required by this [EASA] AD.
Related investigative actions include checking the edge margins of the holes. Corrective actions include reaming affected crossbeams and frames and cold working the frames. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued the following service information:
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2015, which describes procedures for rototest inspections for cracking of the holes in certain fuselage frames and crossbeams.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015, which describes procedures for modifying the airplane, including cold working instructions in certain fuselage frames and crossbeams.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
Where the MCAI, paragraph (4), specifies a repair approved by EASA or under a Design Organization Approval (DOA) other than Airbus, paragraph (j) of this proposed AD refers to a repair approved by the FAA, EASA, or an EASA DOA other than Airbus. The MCAI did not specify whether FAA approved repairs are acceptable for compliance.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 928 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by January 11, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, except the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airplanes on which Airbus modification 161255 has been embodied in production.
(2) Model A319 series airplanes on which Airbus modifications 28238, 28162, and 28342 have been concurrently embodied in production.
(3) Model A318 series airplanes on which Airbus modification 39195 has been embodied in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of early cracking on the four holes of the crossbeam splicing at certain fuselage frames (FR). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at two upper rows of fasteners of the crossbeam splicing at FR16 and FR20, on both the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides, which can result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane due to the failure of structural components.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before exceeding the threshold specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, or table 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable to airplane configuration (pre- or post-modification 20416 or pre- or post-modification 21999): Do a special detailed (rototest) inspection of the two upper rows of fasteners of the crossbeam splicing at FR16 and FR20 on both LH and RH sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2015. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at the intervals specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, or table 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable to airplane configuration (pre- or post-modification 20416 or pre- or post-modification 21999).
Depending on the results from any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions in paragraphs (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any crack is detected: Before further flight, do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2015; except where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2015, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate repair, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), accomplish corrective actions before further flight in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (r)(2) of this AD. Repair of an airplane as required by this paragraph does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane, unless specified otherwise in the repair instructions.
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no cracks are detected: Before further flight, do all applicable fastener installations, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2015.
For airplanes on which Airbus Repair Instruction R53112926 at issue A or B was applied on the frame and/or crossbeam at FR16 LH or RH, or at FR20 LH or RH: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
For airplanes on which a repair with installation of EN6114 countersunk fasteners, approved by the FAA, EASA, or an EASA DOA other than Airbus, was applied on the frame and/or crossbeam at FR16 LH or RH, or at FR20 LH or RH, in the area covered by
Modification of an airplane post-modification 20416 or post-modification 21999 in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane.
For an airplane that has been inspected per ALI task 531110 and repaired before the effective date of this AD using the instructions in an Airbus Repair Design Approval Sheet (RDAS): Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA for instructions and accomplish those instructions accordingly. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Accomplishment of the instructions required by this paragraph, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane, unless specified otherwise in the instructions.
For an airplane post-modification 20416 or post-modification 21999, modification in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015, for the applicable fastener holes, where no damage or cracks were detected (
For an airplane that has been repaired before the effective date of this AD in the areas described in this AD using the instructions in an Airbus RDAS unrelated to ALI task 531110: Before exceeding the compliance times specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD or table 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA for corrective action instructions and accomplish those instructions accordingly. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Accomplishment of corrective action(s) on an airplane, as required by this paragraph, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane, as applicable, unless specified otherwise in the instructions.
(1) Accomplishment of an inspection as required by paragraph (g) of this AD or instructions as required by paragraph (l) of this AD, as applicable, constitutes terminating action for the inspection requirements of ALI task 531110, for that airplane.
(2) Modification of the two upper rows of fasteners of the crossbeam splicing at FR16 and FR20 on both LH and RH sides of an airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015, as specified in paragraphs (k) and (m) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the inspection requirements of ALI task 531110, for those holes for that airplane.
Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2015, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD does not include that requirement.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, dated June 29, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0139, dated July 14, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposal for certain The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and -300F
The comment period for the NPRM published in the
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by January 11, 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 SNPRM, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 S. 102nd Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; telephone 206-762-1171; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6450; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and -300F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that new HFEC inspections for cracking of an expanded area of the lower outboard wing skin are necessary to address the identified unsafe condition for certain airplanes.
Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) has released Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017. In the NPRM, we refer to APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the proposed actions. APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017, corrects certain errors and omissions that were in the Accomplishment Instructions of APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, and provides clarification of certain procedures. APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017, also removes all work related to stringer L-6.5 due to recent analysis that the modification was not sufficient to meet the 767 design service objective.
In light of this analysis, new repetitive post-modification HFEC inspections have been added for airplanes on which the optional terminating modification of the existing skin or external skin doubler has been done. We have revised this proposed AD to refer to APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017, for accomplishing proposed actions for stringer L-9.5.
APB has also released Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017. APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017, includes procedures for inspections, repair (modification), and repair of stringer L-6.5 of the lower outboard wing skin (which replace the actions that were removed from APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017).
We reviewed APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017. The service information describes procedures for an HFEC inspection for cracking of the external surface of the lower outboard wing skin at stringer L-9.5 and on-condition actions that include repetitive HFEC inspections; modification by oversizing and plugging the existing fastener holes of the wing skin; repair (modification) of the stringer with new stringer; repair (modification) of the stringer with external doubler/tripler; repetitive post-repair inspections for cracking; and repair.
We also reviewed APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017. The service information describes procedures for an HFEC inspection for cracking of the lower outboard wing skin at stringer L-6.5 and on-condition actions that include repetitive HFEC inspections; repair (modification) of the stringer with new stringer; repetitive post-repair
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 gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We considered the comments received.
Multiple commenters (United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, American Airlines, Japan Airlines, FedEx, Boeing) requested that the actions specified in APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, be revised. Commenters noted that APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, contained multiple errors. United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, American Airlines and Boeing also requested that the actions specified in the proposed AD be revised for clarity because certain language in the proposed AD did not match the language in APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014. APB stated APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, is being revised to include corrections and clarifications and additional work. APB recommend that we refer to updated service information.
We acknowledge the commenters' request and have revised this SNPRM to refer to the updated service information in APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017, and APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017.
American Airlines, APB, and Boeing requested that we give credit for repairs in the subject area that had received 8100-9 approval prior to the effective date of the AD.
We agree to give credit for repairs that we have determined will address the identified unsafe condition. We replaced the content of paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) with new content in this proposed AD to specify that repairs of the lower outboard wing skin done after June 15, 2017, and before the effective date of this AD, that are approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, are approved for the applicable repairs required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
Air New Zealand requested that we give credit for accomplishing the proposed modification before the effective date of the AD by adding the required service information to paragraph (i) of the proposed AD, which specifies credit for previous actions.
We acknowledge the comment. However, no change to this proposed AD is necessary. Operators who accomplish the actions required by an AD using the required service information before the effective date of an AD are in compliance with the AD. Paragraph (f) of this proposed AD states “comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.” Credit for previous actions in ADs is used primarily to give credit for earlier revisions of required service information that are also acceptable for compliance if done before the effective date of the AD.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
This SNPRM would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed Rule and the Service Information.”
The compliance times vary depending on airplane configuration and inspection area. The shortest initial compliance time is the later of: 1,500 flight cycles or 7,500 flight hours after winglet installation, whichever occurs first; or 18 months after the effective date of the AD. Except for one group of airplanes, the longest initial compliance time is the later of: 7,800 flight cycles or 23,400 flight hours after installation of a certain modification, whichever occurs first; or 18 months after the effective date of the AD. For one group of airplanes, the longest initial compliance time is 29,000 total flight cycles or 111,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
The shortest repetitive interval is 1,500 flight cycles or 7,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first. The longest repetitive interval is 12,000 flight cycles or 36,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017, and APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017, specify to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA whom we have authorized to make those findings.
Table 5a of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of APB Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017, does not provide a grace period for airplanes that have exceeded a certain compliance time. We have added a grace period of 6 months to paragraph (g)(2) of this proposed AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 140 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for on-condition repairs for the post-repair inspections specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by January 11, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and -300F series airplanes, certificated in any category, with Aviation Partners Boeing winglets installed; as identified in Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017; and Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the lower outboard wing skin at the inboard fastener of stringer L-9.5, and the lower outboard wing skin of stringer L-6.5, on airplanes with winglets installed per Supplemental Type Certificate ST01920SE. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in the lower outboard wing skin, which could result in failure and subsequent separation of the wing and winglet and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes identified in Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017, except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the lower outboard wing skin at stringer L-9.5, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017.
(i) For airplanes on which “Condition 1” is found, as defined in the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(1)(i)(A) of this AD: Do the applicable actions required by paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A), (g)(1)(i)(B), (g)(1)(i)(C), or (g)(1)(i)(D) of this AD.
(A) Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017.
(B) Do the applicable actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(B)(
(
(
(
(C) Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(C)(
(
(
(
(D) Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(D)(
(
(
(
(ii) For airplanes on which “Condition 2” is found, as defined in the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(1)(i)(A) of this AD: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A) or (g)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(A) Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(A)(
(
(
(
(B) Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(B)(
(
(
(
(iii) For airplanes on which “Condition 3” is found, as defined in the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017, during the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i)(B)(
(A) Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(iii)(A)(
(
(
(
(B) Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(iii)(B)(
(
(
(
(iv) For airplanes on which “Condition 4” is found, as defined in the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017, during any action specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i)(C)(
(2) For Group 3 airplanes identified in Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do an HFEC inspection for cracking of the lower outboard wing skin at stringer L-9.5, in accordance with Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017. If any cracking is found during any inspection, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. An approved repair terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: Do an HFEC inspection for cracking of stringer L-6.5 of the lower outboard wing skin, in accordance with Part 1 of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017. If no cracking is found, repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017, except as provided by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD.
(2) If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, do the actions required by paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD, and do all applicable actions required by paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this AD.
(i) Before further flight, repair (modify) stringer L-6.5, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017.
(ii) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, do an HFEC post-repair inspection for cracking, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017, and repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017.
(iii) If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this AD, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
(3) As an option to the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, do the actions required by paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD, and do all applicable actions required by paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of this AD.
(i) Before further flight after accomplishing the most recent inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, repair (modify) stringer L-6.5, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017.
(ii) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, do a post-repair HFEC inspection for cracking, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017, and repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017.
(iii) If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this AD, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
Repairs of the lower outboard wing skin done after June 15, 2017, and before the effective date of this AD, that are approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, are approved for the applicable repairs required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 11, dated April 3, 2017, specifies a compliance time of “after the issue date of Revision 11 of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-014, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2017, specifies a compliance time of “after the initial issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(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 ODA that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(B)(
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6450; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 S. 102nd Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; telephone 206-762-1171; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Chilton County Airport (formerly Gragg-Wade Field Airport), Clanton, AL, to accommodate airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of the Gragg-Wade non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of the NDB approach. 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 11, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2017-0802; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-18, 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 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 Chilton County Airport, Clanton, AL, to support IFR operations at the airport.
Interested persons are invited to comment on 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 (Docket No. FAA-2017-0802 and Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-18) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see
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 FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0802; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-18.” 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 document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. 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 within a 7.7-mile radius (increased from a 6.3-mile radius) of Chilton County Airport, Clanton, AL, due to the decommissioning of the Gragg-Wade NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach. The changes would enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport also would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database, and the airport name would be updated to Chilton County Airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA
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 7.7-mile radius of Chilton County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Spanish Fork Airport Springville-Woodhouse Field, Spanish Fork, UT, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) procedures at the airport. This action would ensure the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.
Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0897; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-22, 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.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace to support new RNAV procedures at Spanish Fork Airport Springville-Woodhouse Field, Spanish Fork, UT.
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. Persons 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
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 establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Spanish Fork Airport Springville-Woodhouse Field, Spanish Fork, UT, within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport. This proposed airspace is necessary to support the new RNAV procedures for runways 12 and 30 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, 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 Spanish Fork Airport Springville-Woodhouse Field.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of lead-bearing fugitive dust from roads, storage piles and other activities associated with the primary copper smelter located in Hayden, Arizona. We are proposing to approve a state rule and associated appendix to regulate these emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Any comments must arrive by December 27, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0468 at
Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4125,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the rule and appendix addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were submitted by ADEQ.
On July 17, 2017 the EPA determined that the submittal for ADEQ Rule R18-2-B1301.01 and Appendix 15 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
There are no previous versions of Rule 18-2-B1301.01 and Appendix 15 in the SIP.
On November 12, 2008 the EPA published a final rule revising the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The revisions to the primary and secondary lead NAAQS were to provide increased protection for children and other at-risk populations against an array of health effects including neurological effects. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control lead emissions. ADEQ Rule R18-2-B1302.01 and Appendix 15 establish control requirements and test methods for lead-bearing fugitive dust sources at the Hayden primary copper smelter. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule and appendix.
SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193). On September 3, 2014 the EPA issued a final rule redesignating the Hayden, Arizona area to nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS (79 FR 52205). Under CAA section 172(c)(1), the Arizona SIP must provide for implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT) for lead, and must provide for attainment of the NAAQS in the Hayden nonattainment area. The EPA will address the overall RACM/RACT requirement for the Hayden lead nonattainment area separately, in the context of our action on the “SIP Revision: Hayden Lead Nonattainment Area” submitted by ADEQ to the EPA on March 3, 2017. Therefore, our stringency evaluation considers whether Rule 18-2-B1301.01 implements reasonable controls for leaded fugitive dust at the Hayden primary copper smelter.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
We have determined that the rule and appendix are consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability and SIP revisions. R18-2-B1301.01 establishes controls for lead-bearing fugitive dust emissions surrounding the Hayden copper smelter that include a facility-wide 20% opacity limit, wind fences for storage piles and chemical dust-suppression application for unpaved roads. Appendix 15 describes appropriate test methods to help ensure enforceability. We also have determined that R18-2-B1301.01 generally implements reasonably available controls for lead-bearing fugitive dust at the Hayden smelter. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
The TSD describes additional revisions that we recommend for the next time ADEQ modifies the rule and appendix.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rule and appendix because they fulfill all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until December 27, 2017. If we take final action to approve the submitted rule and appendix, our final action will incorporate them into the federally enforceable SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the ADEQ rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the transfer of the state of Idaho's Underground Injection Control (UIC) program for Class II injection wells from Idaho to EPA, and is concurrently issuing a proposed rule to amend EPA's UIC regulations to reflect such transfer. This transfer would be effective upon publication in the
Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2018. A public hearing will be held only if there is significant public interest. Request for a public hearing will be accepted until December 12, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0584, to the
For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
Colin Dyroff, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4606M), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-3149; fax number: (202) 564-3754; email address:
On August 25, 2017, EPA received a letter from the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), formally requesting that EPA transfer and directly implement the Class II UIC program in Idaho, pursuant to 40 CFR 145.34(a). Class II injection wells inject fluids (1) that are brought to the surface in connection with natural gas storage, or oil or natural gas production; or (2) for the purpose of enhanced oil or natural gas recovery; or (3) for the storage of hydrocarbons, which are liquid at standard temperature and pressure. Idaho received primary implementation and enforcement authority (primacy) for Class I, II, III, IV, and V injection wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act, section 1422, on July 22, 1985. Idaho has since maintained primacy for these injection well classes in Idaho, including Class II.
Class II injection wells were banned in Idaho under the state's regulations in 1985, when EPA originally approved Idaho primacy, and as a result, this ban was codified in EPA's regulations. However, in 2013, the state passed legislation which allows these wells. Although the state's regulations now allow Class II wells, Idaho has not issued any Class II permits because EPA has not approved the change to Idaho's approved Class II UIC program and the wells remain banned under federal law; therefore, the state is not authorized to issue Class II permits. The voluntary transfer of authority for the UIC Class II program to EPA would allow EPA to issue Class II permits in Idaho. EPA would be responsible for the direct implementation of the Class II underground injection program in Idaho, including permitting, compliance, and enforcement responsibilities, pursuant to the SDWA and federal UIC regulations.
This
A state with an approved primacy program may voluntarily transfer UIC program responsibilities to EPA, pursuant to 40 CFR 145.34(a). The regulations require that EPA provide notice of such transfer in the
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 147 set forth the applicable UIC programs for each of the states. This rule would make ministerial revisions to these regulations to reflect the transfer noticed herein. Specifically, the rule would revise 40 CFR part 147, subpart N, to indicate that the Class II UIC program for Idaho is to be directly implemented by EPA, and consists of the UIC program requirements of 40 CFR parts 124, 144, 146, and 148. EPA is taking comment only on these revisions.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0042.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This rule does not impose any requirements on small entities; this action withdraws a state program and therein transfers direct implementation of the Class II UIC program to EPA. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for any directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule does not impose any mandates on small entities; this action withdraws a state program and therein transfers direct implementation of the Class II UIC program to EPA.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action contains no federal mandates for tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable duties on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it transfers a state program.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA has determined that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This rule does not impose any health or safety standards; this action transfers a state program and therein transfers direct implementation of the Class II UIC program to EPA.
Environmental protection, Indian—lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40 chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 300h
The UIC program for Class I, III, IV, and V wells in the state of Idaho, other than those on Indian lands, is the program administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources, approved by EPA pursuant to section 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Notice of this approval was published in the
(a)
(b)
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission seeks comment on how best to move toward complete nationwide number portability (NNP) to promote competition among all service providers. The NPRM proposes to eliminate the N-1 query requirement, and also proposes to forbear from the dialing parity requirements for competitive LECs that remain after the
Comments are due on or before December 27, 2017, and reply comments are due on or before January 26, 2018. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before January 26, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by both WC Docket No. 17-244, and WC Docket No. 13-97 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Sherwin Siy, at (202) 418-2783, or
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket No. 17-244, and CC Docket No. 13-97, adopted October 24, 2017, and released October 26, 2017. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It is available on the Commission's Web site at
•
•
•
1. Telephone numbers continue to serve as important identifiers for reaching family and friends, businesses, and other key contacts. Therefore, many individuals and businesses value their telephone numbers and the ability to keep them—whether changing service providers, moving from one neighborhood to another, or relocating across the country.
2. Currently, consumers and businesses can keep their telephone numbers when changing service providers—wireline-to-wireline, wireless-to-wireless, and wireline-to-wireless and the reverse—when they move
3. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Commission seeks comment on how best to move toward complete nationwide number portability to promote competition between all service providers, regardless of size or type of service (wireline or wireless). We also explore how technical aspects of our current LNP and dialing parity rules hinder the efficient routing of calls throughout the network, causing inefficiencies and delays.
4. The Commission has plenary authority over numbering matters. Section 251(e) of the Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) gives the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) and related telephone numbering issues in the United States. Section 251(b)(2) of the Act requires local exchange carriers (LECs) to “provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in
5. A wireless user may currently have more opportunities than a wireline user when it comes to number porting. But even among wireless competitors, smaller rural and regional carriers are at a disadvantage versus their nationwide competitors. Wireless-to-wireless porting is only possible if the ported-to wireless carrier has a facilities-based presence in the porting customer's original geographic location, placing smaller, non-nationwide carriers at a disadvantage. Similarly, existing technical strictures prevent customers from porting their numbers from wireless-to-wireline services, should a consumer want to do so, unless the ported-to wireline service provider happens to have a presence in the same rate center as the customer's number. This requirement naturally limits the ability of LECs to port-in numbers from wireless services, and will affect any toll or long-distance charges or other distance-sensitive costs for transiting the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) portion of the call path, placing these local wireline carriers at a disadvantage when it comes to competing for consumers.
6. An interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) user is likewise limited in terms of portability. While there is no technologically-inherent restriction on location of use if connectivity is supported via the Internet (or via a dedicated network that can connect to it), calls to and from the PSTN are routed through the rate center where the telephone number is assigned as a local number. This means that the rate center “location” of the number determines the location and thus the available LECs to which a customer can port the number. This reduced flexibility and choice also disadvantages LEC over providers of other telephony services.
7. Many consumers are thus still limited to
8. The Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) subsequently asserted that “CCA's rural and regional members have experienced problems with porting-in wireless numbers from disparate parts of the country.” CCA further asserts that, as a result, non-nationwide carriers are placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to their nationwide counterparts who are able to port-in numbers regardless of location. CCA expressed that number portability “helps to expand competition by allowing consumers to choose carriers that offer lower prices and innovative product and service offerings, and these public interest benefits are diminished when non-nationwide carriers do not have the same capability as nationwide carriers.”
9. On May 16, 2016, the North American Numbering Council (NANC), issued a report on NNP. The NANC is the Commission's Federal Advisory Committee on numbering administration matters. It is comprised of state regulators, consumer groups, industry representatives, and other stakeholders interested in number administration. The NANC Report recommended further inquiry into several issues, including potential impacts to the life of the NANP, necessary edits to federal rules, and the role of LRNs in the future as carriers use both time division multiplexing- and VoIP-based interconnection.
10. The Alliance for Technical Industry Solutions (ATIS) approved a Technical Report on a Nationwide Number Portability Study on June 20, 2016. The Alliance for Telecommunication Industry Solutions (ATIS) is a technical planning and standards organization that develops and promotes technical and operations standards for communications and related information technologies worldwide. The ATIS Report analyzes five potential solutions for achieving NNP: (1) Nationwide implementation of LRNs; (2) non-Geographic LRNs (NGLRNs); (3) commercial agreements; (4) Internet interconnection; and (5) iconectiv's GR-2982-CORE specification. ATIS reported that the commercial agreement solution is the only one that can be supported today that has no porting impacts.
11. On August 30, 2016, the NANC LNP Working Group issued a white paper on NGNP (the NANC notes that NGNP and NNP “are considered to be two synonymous terms, but it has become the preference of the NANC Working Groups to use the term NNP”). Among other things, the LNP Working Group concluded that regulatory changes made as a result of non-geographic number porting implementation should be technology and provider agnostic. The Working Group reiterated that “any implementation of NGNP . . . will require collaboration and support by all parties involved” and that an industry move towards NGNP will require a mandate by the Commission.
12. In the last few years, ATIS and the NANC have worked to develop approaches for implementing NNP and thereby, increase access to smaller, regional carriers and increase routing efficiency in the network. Because the changes required by some of these proposals could be hindered by legacy aspects of our telephone regulations, we propose to eliminate certain legacy aspects of our telephone regulations to promote NNP, such as existing N-1 and dialing parity requirements. This section provides a summary of existing number portability mechanisms as background to the proposals and questions in the NPRM and the NOI below.
13.
14.
15. The N-1 requirement requires the second-to-last carrier to perform the number portability database query; where an interexchange carrier is involved, this prevents the originating carrier from performing the query. The N-1 requirement was recommended by the NANC and adopted by the Commission in the early stages of implementing LNP because it ensured that: Carriers would know when a database had been queried; the cost of performing queries would be distributed between interexchange and originating providers; and, moreover, that routing performance would not be degraded by, for instance, having a call routed to a supposed terminating carrier, only for that carrier to perform a query and discover that the number had been ported and required further routing. Furthermore, industry stakeholders at the time preferred the N-1 query requirement to having the originating service provider perform the query, since doing so would require all carriers across the country to implement number portability simultaneously for it to work. However, given changing market conditions, and even more so with NNP, this system may need to be altered. As explained by ATIS, “[i]n an NNP environment, a call could look like it is interLATA but actually be intraLATA. In this case it could be more efficient for the originating carrier to know this, but they may not be able to do this with the N-1 requirement.” Thus, changes to the number portability system can affect the ability for a given carrier to know whether or not it is in fact the N-1 carrier, and the requirement would actively introduce inefficiencies into the routing system, in some cases resulting in calls unnecessarily being rerouted multiple times, potentially increasing traffic and costs for carriers, and delays for consumers.
16.
17. We seek, through this NPRM and NOI, to continue the Commission's efforts to align our regulations with the trend toward all-distance voice services. Moreover, we recognize, the decline of the stand-alone long distance market has limited the relevance and utility of certain equal access obligations for competitive providers and their customers. In the
18. Since the
19. We believe that NNP will level the playing field for many rural and regional carriers, who are disadvantaged by the difficulty or outright inability of consumers to port in to their networks. Accordingly, we believe it is important to begin forging the way towards NNP. Because we understand that achieving this goal without incurring significant practical harms or prohibitive costs will require extensive work, collaboration, and support by all parties involved, we propose taking an incremental approach toward achieving NNP. As a first step to accommodate the architectures of NNP proposals and to reflect the evolving marketplace, we propose to remove the N-1 query requirement. Further, based on the ATIS Report and the marketplace findings in the
20. We seek comment on whether the N-1 query requirement impedes plans for NNP such as the non-geographic LNP proposal. As the ATIS Report notes, in an NNP environment, an originating carrier could not determine, without performing a query, whether a dialed number required interexchange routing or not. This could lead to a number of inefficiencies, such as a scenario in which a number is ported from a distant location to the same LATA as an originating caller. In such a scenario, the originating carrier, believing the call to be long-distance, would route the call to an interexchange carrier, only for the interexchange carrier, upon conducting the query, to have to route the ported number back to the originating carrier's LATA.
21. Furthermore, the motivating concerns that caused the NANC to recommend and the Commission to implement the N-1 requirement no longer seem to apply. When it was first adopted, the N-1 requirement was favored over requiring originating carriers to perform the database query because this latter solution would have required every local carrier across the country to adopt LNP simultaneously in a “flash-cut” manner for LNP to work, requiring more complicated coordination of the LNP rollout. Moreover, in an environment of many competing interexchange carriers and restrictions on incumbent LECs from offering interexchange services, interexchange carriers “wanted to ensure that they were involved in this important aspect of call processing.” Since LNP has by now been broadly and successfully adopted nationwide, and in light of the changed competitive landscape, we anticipate that these concerns are no longer relevant.
22. We therefore propose to eliminate the N-1 query requirement, and we seek comment on this proposal. What are the benefits and drawbacks of removing the requirement? Is eliminating the requirement necessary to, or will it facilitate, the implementation of non-geographic location routing numbers or other NNP proposals, as suggested by ATIS? Would removing the requirement interfere with any aspects of the current routing or number portability querying system, or any other aspect of the network? For example, by proposing to allow carriers flexibility in conducting NPAC queries, will there be coordination issues among carriers or calls that are processed without a query? What costs, if any, would be saved if we eliminated the N-1 query requirement? Did the N-1 requirement lead to network routing inefficiencies and will its elimination correct those inefficiencies? Alternatively, will rescinding the requirement add to the costs of originating carriers, terminating carriers, or other parties, either in terms of performing more queries, or in terms of requiring equipment upgrades? Are there transaction or other costs or harms associated with transitioning away from N-1 query? In the absence of the requirement, would costs of the system be allocated appropriately? Would there be any other benefits of eliminating the N-1 query requirement not predicated on a move to NNP? Interested stakeholders should address these questions.
23. The ATIS Report states that eliminating the N-1 query requirement does not require supplanting it with a new requirement that originating carriers query the NPAC. According to the Report, “[a] carrier could choose to query all calls on their originating network and route calls to the NNP numbers accordingly, or they could choose to handle calls as they do today,
24. We also seek comment on whether anticipated changes in routing and queries might have other effects upon the public. For instance, how would these changes interact with public safety, including the provision of emergency services, such as 911 or Next Generation 911 calls? Will eliminating the N-1 query requirement lead to any changes in the handling of emergency calls, including their routing or the provision of necessary caller information?
25. In the
26. We propose to forbear from the dialing parity requirements of section 251(b)(3) as they apply to interexchange services. The
27. We believe that the remaining interexchange dialing parity requirements for competitive LECs are no longer necessary in today's all-distance market to ensure that the charges and practices of competitive LECs are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory, and are no longer necessary for the protection of consumers. We further believe that the rationales behind the forbearance from the interexchange dialing parity requirements in the
28. We also seek comment on the extent to which the interexchange dialing parity provisions affect any competitive LECs in practice. Do these provisions have substantial effects upon the costs, practices, and behavior of LECs currently? Are there any effects upon competitive LECs that significantly affect the market for local service as a whole? For example, given that competitive LECs serve a relatively small percentage of residential wireline voice accounts, do these provisions help a significant number of consumers or competitors?
29. Forbearance from the interexchange dialing parity requirements would also appear to be in the public interest. ATIS notes that an NNP regime, with all of the benefits to competition and consumers that come with it, would be facilitated by the elimination of interLATA call processing requirements. The ATIS Report notes that carriers' ability to efficiently route calls to non-geographic LRNs could be hindered by the need to refer calls that look like interexchange calls to a third-party carrier, when the call would more efficiently have been routed to a non-geographic transport provider or a non-geographic gateway. It is our understanding that forbearing from interexchange dialing parity would enable originating carriers to better choose how to route their calls, preventing inefficient network routing that might otherwise result from various NNP proposals. Do commenters agree? Can customers' pre-subscribed interexchange carrier choices accommodate the proposed changes without a loss of efficiency or undue cost? Are there other effects upon the public interest that might result from our proposed forbearance from the interexchange dialing parity requirements for competitive LECs? For instance, will there be any effects upon 911, Next Generation 911, or other aspects of emergency calling?
30. Furthermore, section 10(b) requires that the Commission account for the effects of forbearance on ensuring a competitive marketplace in making its public interest determination. Since the implementation of the
31. Given the decreased need for these mandates, combined with the likelihood that they will impede the implementation of NNP, we propose to use our forbearance authority to eliminate remaining interexchange dialing parity requirements, which apply to competitive LECs. We seek comment on this proposal. What costs, if any, do competitive LECs currently bear due to these requirements? Are other providers of local voice service, such as interconnected VoIP providers, affected by the application of these provisions, either to themselves or to competitors? Do other stakeholders benefit from relieving competitive LECs of these requirements, or are there other costs? Are there stakeholders whose position vis-à-vis competitive LECs today is significantly different from their position vis-à-vis incumbent LECs at the time of the
32. In the
33. We also seek comment on the continuing need to preserve the choices of existing customers who are presubscribed to stand-alone long-distance services, whose choices were grandfathered in the
34. We seek comment on whether the rationales for the grandfathering in the
35. Because we propose to forbear from the long-distance dialing parity provisions of section 251(b)(3), for both incumbent and competitive LECs, we propose to eliminate the rules implementing those requirements. We believe that sections 51.209 (“Toll dialing parity”), 51.213 (“Toll dialing parity implementation plans”), and 51.215 (“Dialing parity; Cost recovery” for toll dialing parity), serve only to implement the provisions of section 251(b)(3) relating to toll dialing parity, and thus should be eliminated if our proposed forbearances are to be effective in facilitating the development of NNP. We also propose modifying section 51.205 (“Dialing parity: General”) to omit references to toll dialing parity. We seek comment on this proposal. Do these rule provisions serve any purpose or implement any other portions of the Act other than section 251(b)(3)? Are there any other rules whose only purpose is to implement toll dialing parity requirements? Are there any interests beyond those articulated in the Act's dialing parity provisions that require these rules? How are these considerations affected by the retention or elimination of grandfathered customer relationships with presubscribed interexchange carriers? Will the elimination of these rules have any effect upon slamming? For example, can elimination of these rules reduce the mechanisms by which unscrupulous entities slam consumers? Conversely, are there useful consumer protections against slamming in these rules that are not effectively implemented elsewhere?
36. We seek comment on whether there are other rules that should be rescinded or modified to promote NNP. Should we consider forbearing from any other statutory provisions to allow the benefits of NNP to competition and consumers? We also seek comment on the interplay of the proposed forbearance and rule changes discussed in the NPRM with the technical solutions discussed below in the NOI. Specifically, to make NNP workable, should any forbearance and rule changes happen first, in advance of implementing any technical solutions, or should the Commission defer until any technical solutions are in place?
37. While we believe it is important to move toward NNP, and invite comment above on steps that would lay the groundwork for doing so, we also seek input on how best to implement NNP, as well as its potential impacts on consumers and carriers. We therefore seek comment in this NOI on a variety of issues related to the deployment of NNP. We also note that while the focus of this NOI is to seek perspectives on the most feasible way to implement NNP, the goals of this proceeding could also be facilitated by larger changes to the current system of numbering administration. To that end, we also seek comment on how number administration might be improved to realize more efficient technical, operational, administrative, and legal processes.
38. The ATIS Report and the NANC Report focus on NNP across wireline and wireless telecommunications services. Early efforts on this issue, however, focused merely on ensuring that wireless customers can retain their numbers when porting to other wireless carriers that lack a nationwide service area. We believe broader, intermodal NNP efforts will benefit consumers and competition, as well as potentially allow for useful reforms of the numbering system, and we explore means of achieving this goal below.
39. While our goal is to ensure broad, intermodal NNP, are there any benefits to a gradual implementation of NNP? Is such a partial deployment technically feasible? For instance, would it be possible for NNP to first be implemented for a particular subset of entities using numbering resources (such as wireless providers) before applying it to all entities? What advantages and disadvantages are there to a partial implementation of NNP?
40. We seek comment on four of the specific models of NNP outlined by ATIS in its report: (1) Nationwide implementation of LRNs; (2) non-Geographic LRNs (NGLRNs); (3) commercial agreements; and (4) iconectiv's GR-2982-CORE specification. Are any of the models preferable to others in terms of feasibility, cost, and adaptability to changing markets and technologies? Have ATIS and the NANC adequately considered the potential costs, benefits,
41.
42. National LRN may require carriers' existing switches to handle more numbering plan areas, since a given switch may have to accommodate telephone numbers being ported in from a wider range of original areas. National LRN likely also requires changes to number portability rules. We have proposed eliminating the N-1 query requirement and remaining interexchange dialing parity requirements in the NPRM above. Are additional changes necessary? We seek comment on these issues.
43. The national LRN proposal also implicates several non-routing issues. Industry processes, including the handling of call detail records, subscriber billing, and caller ID, will be impacted. We also anticipate that tariffs, toll free database processing, enhanced 911 processes, and other systems that rely upon the relationship between a telephone number and its rate center/LATA will likely be affected. What systems will be affected, and to what extent? We seek comment from providers, end users, and other stakeholders on what dependencies exist that would require changes, as well as how changes brought about by national LRN can improve existing systems.
44. The ATIS Report anticipates that a porting-in service provider may not have a presence in the ported-out area. While such situations currently exist and are generally handled by agreements between providers, many more such situations are likely to arise in a national LRN environment. What effects will this increase in demand have?
45. Local systems, including Local Service Management Systems (LSMS) and Service Order Administration (SOA), will also be affected by a national LRN system. Current systems may rely in part upon an assumed structure whereby numbers are only ported within LATAs or NPAC regions; an LRN can only be associated with a single NPAC region; or a ported telephone number record can only exist in one NPAC region. We seek comment on what dependencies exist based on these assumptions, and how they might be resolved.
46. What is necessary to ensure that a national LRN system is compatible with the variation in dialing plans across the country? Different customers have different requirements when dialing—some need only dial seven digits of a local number; others must dial ten digits, others must dial 1 and ten digits. Is nationwide consistency required for national LRN compatibility?
47. What effects will a national LRN system have on state regulators and systems? Porting numbers across state lines raises questions of existing state regulatory authority, and policy, including numbering resource management. For example, would NNP affect state regulatory commission processes for reviewing tariffs, handling customer complaints, and ensuring public safety? Provider responsibilities, obligations, and liabilities may also be implicated with interstate porting. We seek comment on what issues may arise and how they may be resolved. Can existing systems and agreements in bordering states serve as models for interstate cooperation?
48. How will consumer experiences be affected by a national LRN system? Would calls to numbers ported outside of a specific rate center have completion issues? Consumers would also need to be informed about any effects upon rates and billing, if they subscribe to a geographically-based rate plan keyed to their rate center or LATA. How might this be done? Some consumers use software that blocks calls which incur tolls, based upon the number's NPA-NXX. How will such programs be affected, and how can they be adapted, if necessary, to accommodate a national LRN system? What effects will there be on caller ID?
49. Certain services are set up with restrictions on toll free calling based on the calling party's location. A customer who ports his number to a new location might therefore have problems calling the same toll-free number. We seek comment on the effects on toll free calling and potential implications of national LRN.
50.
51. The ATIS Report anticipates that aspects of interLATA call processing requirements, such as the dialing parity provisions, may interfere with an NGLRN system. Likewise, the ATIS Report suggests that the N-1 query requirement could create problems. Are these concerns adequately dealt with by our proposed forbearance from these rules as discussed above?
52. To route calls to non-geographic telephone numbers, carriers will need to access relevant routing information and route to NGGWs. Carriers that cannot route to NGGWs will need to route calls to a carrier that can, possibly requiring agreements with non-geographic transport providers. What policies are necessary to ensure continued and reliable call routing in an NGLRN system? What criteria should be required for NGGWs? The ATIS Report recommends that an industry-led body create a certification process. What bodies are best placed to conduct such certification, and what oversight should they have to ensure effectiveness, efficiency, transparency, and competition? We also seek comment on criteria for NGGWs, such as interconnection requirements. The ATIS Report recommends that carriers not be required to provide NGGW service or NNP service and that the only requirement be that carriers have the ability to route calls to NGLRNs. Furthermore, ATIS suggests that carriers that do choose to provide NGGW do so “for their own customers only.” We seek comment on this recommendation. Relatedly, the NGLRN system is designed such that carriers are not required to implement NNP. What would be an appropriate timeline for NNP adoption, if any?
53. What characteristics should any non-geographic area code have? Should it be easily recognizable? Should various non-geographic area codes resemble each other for ease of recognition? How should the system address integration with other NANP countries? What impact would assignment and use of a non-geographic area code or codes within the NANP have on number exhaust in the United States and other NANP countries? We also seek comment on whether a single non-geographic area code will scale for the total set of NGLRNs. Will a single non-geographic area code be sufficient for the future?
54. The ATIS Report also raises several specific questions with regard to administration of non-geographic resources with an NGLRN system. The ATIS Report notes that certain current systems can be simplified with the adoption of non-geographic codes, such as combining the processes of number allocation and porting, or allowing distributed registries to handle processes currently managed by a single authoritative registry. We seek comment on the potential for such reforms, and their integration with existing systems and authorities.
55. With an NGLRN system, a call to 911 does not indicate its location by virtue of the calling telephone number, but rather from databases such as the Master Service Address Guide (MSAG) or the emergency service number that has been assigned to the cell site. Will systems that depend on pseudo-Automatic Number Identification (p-ANI), in use for wireless and VoIP calls, be appropriate for other non-geographic calls?
56.
57. In a commercial agreement solution, what entities would act as the third-party network, and what abilities and obligations would they need to have for effective and competitive operation? What would such a system require with respect to LRN assignments? Would such a proposal provide a pathway for wireline and intermodal NNP?
58.
59. Do commenters agree with the NGNP subcommittee's assessments? Are there other issues or factors we should take into consideration in exploring the various approaches? How should the subcommittee's assessments affect any future action on these solutions?
60. The ATIS Report suggests that this solution may require the NPAC to relax existing LRN changes; that porting data may need to change to include GUBB information; and that these changes may impact all switches and number portability databases, as well as many SOAs and LSMS systems. What do these effects suggest for the viability of this solution currently? What is the likely timing for this option?
61. Apart from the implications raised by each specific proposal outlined by ATIS and the NANC, most, if not all, NNP proposals will have consequences for a variety of other aspects of the network. We seek comment on these implications in the specific areas below.
62.
63.
64. For instance, how can proposed NNP solutions work with legacy systems that rely upon ANI to report the location of users calling 911? Are enhanced or next generation 911 services affected by the proposals? The ATIS Report details several number portability issues affecting emergency calls, and we seek comment on their resolution.
65. The ATIS Report similarly notes potential effects of NNP proposals on the use of national security and emergency preparedness systems like Emergency Telecommunications Service
66.
67.
68. We also seek comment on how changes to our current methods of numbering plan, number pooling, and number portability administration might facilitate NNP, or how NNP might affect these existing systems. If we significantly simplify the assignment and porting of numbers, would these changes require modifications to the current systems? Would it be possible, and beneficial, to allow multiple entities to provide competitive numbering administration services? Are there other systems of addressing what can serve as models for an evolving and increasingly IP-based network?
69. As noted above, section 251(e)(1) of the Act gives the Commission “exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States” and provides that numbers must be made “available on an equitable basis.” The Commission retains “authority to set policy with respect to all facets of numbering administration in the United States.” The Commission has promulgated local number portability rules to satisfy these congressional mandates, and the proposed actions in this NPRM are intended to further and better satisfy these mandates. We seek comment on this assessment.
70. Moreover, section 10 of the Act states that the Commission shall forbear from applying any regulation or provision of the Act if it determines that: (1) Enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary for the protection of consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is consistent with the public interest. We believe that our proposals discussed here satisfy these criteria as the remaining interexchange dialing parity requirements for competitive LECs are no longer necessary in today's all distance market to ensure that the charges and practices of competitive LECs are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory, and are no longer necessary for the protection of consumers. We seek comment on our forbearance analysis, as well as any other issues pertinent to our legal authority to facilitate NNP.
71. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
72. In this NPRM, we propose changes to, and seek comment on, our rules on Local Number Portability Administration, and Nationwide Number Portability (NNP). In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to rescind the N-1 query requirement. Further, based on the ATIS Report and the marketplace findings in the
73. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this NPRM is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 10, 201(b), and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 160, 201(b), and 251(e)(1).
74. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and by the rule revisions on which the NPRM seeks comment, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that,
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87. The Commission's own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that, as of October 25, 2016, there are 280 Cellular licensees that will be affected by our actions today. The Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service, and Specialized Mobile Radio Telephony services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94. This NPRM proposes changes to, and seeks comment on, Commission rules on Local Number Portability Administration, and Nationwide Number Portability (NNP). The NPRM seeks to amend our rules by removing the N-1 query requirement and proposes to forbear from remaining interexchange dialing parity requirements of section 251(b)(3). The objectives of the proposed modifications are to remove impediments to NNP. As the NPRM seeks comment on rule withdrawal and forbearance, we therefore do not adopt new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
95. As reported in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (1996 FRFA) of the 1996 order instituting the dialing parity rules, the compliance requirements of the Section 251 dialing parity rules include “dialing-parity specific software, hardware, signaling system upgrades and necessary consumer education.” Such compliance entailed the “use of engineering, technical, operational, and accounting skills.” We seek comment on whether withdrawing these proposed rules will enable LECs, including small entities, to reduce or eliminate these costs via a lesser compliance burden.
96. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.
97. The 1996 FRFA states that the dialing parity provisions allowed “LECs and competing providers of telephone toll service” including small entities “to not be subject to an array of differing state standards and timetables requiring them to research and tailor their operations to the unique requirements of each state.” We seek comment as to the extent all LECs, including small entities, will be economically impacted by the removal of nationwide provisions.
98. The 1996 FRFA also explains that as result of the dialing parity rules, a carrier could not automatically designate itself as a “toll carrier without notifying the customer of the opportunity to choose an alternative carrier, one or more of which may be a small business.” We seek comment as to any additional economic burden incurred by small entities as a result of the withdrawal of the dialing parity rule.
99. None.
100. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document in Dockets WC 17-244, and WC 13-97. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
101. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
102. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and actions considered in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The text of the IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
103. This document may contain proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
104. For further information about this proceeding, please contact Sherwin Siy, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Room 5-C225, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-2783,
105. Accordingly,
106.
Interconnection.
Numbering.
For the reasons set forth above, The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend parts 51 and 52 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151-55, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 220, 225-27, 251-54, 256, 271, 303(r), 332, 1302.
A local exchange carrier (LEC) shall provide local dialing parity to competing providers of telephone exchange service, with no unreasonable dialing delays. Dialing parity shall be provided for originating telecommunications services that require dialing to route a call.
Remove § 51.209.
Remove § 51.213.
Remove § 51.215.
Secs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154 and 155 unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 3, 4, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-52, 271 and 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-52, 271 and 332 unless otherwise noted.
(a) Local number portability administration shall comply with the recommendations of the North American Numbering Council (NANC) as set forth in the report to the Commission prepared by the NANC's Local Number Portability Administration Selection Working Group, dated April 25, 1997 (
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 27, 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.
Office of Human Resource Management, Departmental Management, USDA.
Notice of Performance Review Board appointments.
This notice announces the members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) and Senior Level (SL) and Scientific or Professional (ST) Performance Review Board. Agriculture has one PRB that is represented by each Mission Area. The PRB is comprised of a Chairperson and a mix of career and noncareer senior executives that meets annually to review and evaluate performance appraisal documents and provides a written recommendation to the Secretary for final approval of each executive's performance rating, performance-based pay adjustment, and performance award.
The board membership is applicable beginning on October 24, 2017.
Marsha A. Wiggins, Acting Director, Office of Human Resources Management, telephone: (202) 720-3585, or Terri Meighan, Acting Director, Executive Resources Management Division, telephone: (202) 720-2655.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the USDA PRB members are named below:
Adcock, Rebeckah F. and Lyons, Margaret P.
Salguero, Francisco; William, Duane
Lake Scott, Winona M.
Lipps, Brandon R.
Christensen, Thomas W.
Rottenberg, Carmen M.
Morris, Erin and Shea, A. Kevin
Jiron, Daniel J.; Millar, Constance I.; and Velasco, Robert
Bice, Donald
Hohenstein, William G.
Moaney, Lynn M.
Leland, Arlean and Ricci, Carrie F.
McLean, Christopher and Primrose, Edna
Bretting, Peter K.; Hamer Jr., Hubert; Jacobs-Young, Chavonda J.; Liu, Simon Y.; and Mattoo, Autar K.
Hafemeister, Jason T.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA); correction.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a document in the
Robin Meigel, USDA—Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 1568, Washington, DC 20250-1568, telephone (202) 720-9452 or email to
In the
Also, in the same FR Doc. 2017-22042, on page 47462, in the first column, under the heading “a. High Poverty Areas” in the first paragraph, the third sentence should begin as follows: “In support of this USDA initiative, RUS will award 10 priority points for projects that serve communities in counties that are classified as High Poverty or Persistent Poverty by the USDA Economic Research Service . . .”
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, United States Department of Commerce.
On August 1, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for 24 companies. Based on timely withdrawal of requests for review, we are now rescinding this administrative review with respect to four of these companies, Changshan Peer Bearing Co., Ltd. (CPZ/SKF), Hubei New Torch Science & Technology Co Ltd (New Torch), Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd (SGBC), and Wanxiang Group Corp (Wanxiang).
Applicable November 27, 2017.
Andrew Medley or Whitley Herndon, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4987 or (202) 482-6274, respectively.
In June 2017, the Department received multiple timely requests to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC. Based upon these requests, on August 1, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review covering the period June 1, 2016, through May 31, 2017, with respect to 24 companies.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. CPZ/SKF and SGBC timely withdrew their requests for an administrative review of themselves. The petitioner timely withdrew its requests for review concerning SGBC, Wanxiang, and New Torch. No other party requested a review of these four companies. Accordingly, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment
This notice serves as a 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 presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on a request from Pitsco, Inc. d/b/a Pitsco Education (Pitsco), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating changed circumstances reviews to consider the possible revocation, in part, of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China (PRC) with respect to certain solar panels, as described below.
Applicable November 27, 2017.
Lauren Caserta or Kaitlin Wojnar, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4737 and (202) 482-3857, respectively.
On December 7, 2012, the Department published AD and CVD orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the PRC.
On October 6, 2017, Pitsco, an importer of the subject merchandise, requested through a changed circumstances review revocation, in part, of the
Accordingly, on November 10, 2017, Pitsco submitted the following revised exclusion language:
Excluded from the scope of these orders are panels with surface area from 3,450 mm
On November 13, 2017, SolarWorld submitted a letter stating that it does not oppose the revised exclusion language submitted by Pitsco on November 10, 2017.
The merchandise covered by the orders is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.
The orders cover crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building-integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of the orders.
Excluded from the scope of the orders are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).
Also excluded from the scope of the orders are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in the PRC are covered by the orders; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in the PRC from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by the orders.
Merchandise covered by these orders is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.
Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request from an interested party
Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) provide that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the order, in whole or in part. In addition, in the event the Department determines that expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results. In its administrative practice, the Department has interpreted “substantially all” to mean producers accounting for at least 85 percent of the total U.S. production of the domestic like product covered by the order.
The petitioner states that it agrees with the exclusion request; however, because the petitioner did not indicate whether it accounts for substantially all of the domestic production of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, we are providing interested parties with the opportunity to address the issue of domestic industry support with respect to this requested partial revocation of the orders, as explained below. After examining comments, if any, concerning domestic industry support, the Department will issue the preliminary results of these changed circumstances reviews.
Interested parties are invited to provide comments and/or factual information regarding these changed circumstances reviews, including comments concerning industry support. Comments and factual information may be submitted to the Department no later than ten days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal comments and rebuttal factual information may be filed with the Department no later than seven days after the comments and/or factual information are filed.
The Department will issue preliminary results of these changed circumstances reviews, which will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which the preliminary results are based, and, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), will include a description of any action proposed because of those results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of these reviews. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department intends to issue the final results of these AD and CVD changed circumstance reviews within 270 days after the date on which the reviews are initiated, or within 45 days if all parties to the proceeding agree to the outcome of the review. This initiation is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration Department of Commerce.
Applicable November 27, 2017.
Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3692.
Section 702 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (the Act) requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, and to publish quarterly updates to the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the Department's quarterly update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the periods April 1, 2017, through June 30, 2017.
The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act,
The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.
This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable November 27, 2017.
Sergio Balbontin at (202) 482-6478 or Michael Bowen at (202) 482-0768, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On August 2, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of imports of cast iron soil pipe fittings (soil pipe fittings) from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a 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 makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) the Department concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. The Department will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On November 14, 2017, the Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute
For the reason 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 determination 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.
Applicable November 27, 2017.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain stilbenic optical brightening agents (stilbenic OBAs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty orders.
Eli Lovely, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1593.
On April 3, 2017, the Department published the notice of initiation of the first sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on stilbenic OBAs from the PRC and Taiwan pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
As a result of its review, the Department determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain stilbenic OBAs from the PRC and Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail should the orders be revoked.
On October 27, 2017, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c)(1) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain stilbenic OBAs from the PRC and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The stilbenic OBAs covered by the orders are all forms (whether free acid or salt) of compounds known as triazinylaminostilbenes (
Excluded from the orders are all forms of 4,4′-bis[4-anilino-6-morpholino-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]
These stilbenic OBAs are classifiable under subheading 3204.20.8000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), but they may also enter under subheadings 2933.69.6050, 2921.59.4000 and 2921.59.8090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
As a result of these determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping orders on certain stilbenic OBAs from the PRC and Taiwan. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of these orders will be the date of publication in the
This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast and Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic (the Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to Bravo Wharf Recapitalization, Year 2 in Naval Station Mayport (NSM), Jacksonville, Florida. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental
Comments and information must be received no later than December 27, 2017.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Brianna Elliott, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.
On July 12, 2017, NMFS received a request from the Navy for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving in association with the Bravo Wharf recapitalization project at NSM, FL. The Navy's request is for take of bottlenose dolphins (
NMFS previously issued IHAs to the Navy for similar work at Bravo Wharf (81 FR 52637, 1 December 2016; revised IHA for this activity: 82 FR 11344, 13 March 2017) and Wharf C-2, also located within NSM (80 FR 55598, 8 September 2015; 78 FR 71566, 1 December 2013 and revised IHA for this activity: 79 FR 27863, 1 September 2014). The Navy complied with all the requirements (
This proposed IHA would cover one year of a larger project for which the Navy obtained a prior IHA at Bravo Wharf. The larger project involves recapitalization of Bravo Wharf at three berths in NSM spread across Phase I and Phase II, which involves installing 880 single sheet piles through the two phases. The majority of construction activity is occurring in the first year of the project, with Phase I estimated to be fully complete and Phase II estimated to be 60 percent complete by March 13, 2018, the proposed start date for this proposed IHA; therefore, this IHA is for the remaining work at Bravo Wharf.
Bravo Wharf is a medium draft, general purpose berthing wharf that was constructed in 1970 and lies at the western edge of the NSM turning basin. Bravo Wharf is approximately 2,000 feet (ft) long, 125 ft wide, and has a berthing depth of 50 ft mean lower low water. The wharf is one of two primary deep draft berths at the basin and is capable of berthing ships up to and including large amphibious ships; it is one of three primary ordnance handling berths at the basin. The wharf is a diaphragm steel sheet pile cell structure with a concrete apron, partial concrete encasement of the piling, and asphalt paved deck. The
Both vibratory and impact pile driving could result in take, by Level B harassment only, of bottlenose dolphins through exposure to the sound source in waters surrounding NSM. Activity will be confined to forty days, including 30 days for vibratory pile driving and 10 contingency days for impact pile driving.
The total project, including the first year of construction for which an IHA was issued (82 FR 11344; 22 February 2017) is expected to require a maximum of 130 days of in-water pile driving. The second year of the project, reflected in this proposed IHA, will involve a maximum of 40 days of in-water construction. Vibratory pile driving is expected to take 30 days, with a contingent 10 days of impact pile driving. Operators would only conduct pile driving during daylight hours as determined by NOAA data, and no in-water construction activities could occur between 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. at any point during the year. The specified activities are expected to occur between March 13, 2018 and March 12, 2019.
NSM is located in northeastern Florida, at the mouth of the St. Johns River and adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean (see Figures 1-1, 2-1, and 2-2 of the Navy's application). The St. Johns River is the longest river in Florida, with the final 35 miles (mi) flowing through the city of Jacksonville. This portion of the river is significant for commercial shipping and military use. At the mouth of the river, near the action area, the Atlantic Ocean is the dominant influence and typical salinities are above 30 parts per million. Outside the river mouth, in nearshore waters, moderate oceanic currents tend to flow southward parallel to the coast. Sea surface temperatures range from around 16 °C in winter to 28 °C in summer.
The specific action area consists of the NSM turning basin, an area of approximately 2,000 by 3,000 ft containing ship-berthing facilities at sixteen locations along wharves around the basin perimeter. The basin was constructed during the early 1940s by dredging the eastern part of Ribault Bay (at the mouth of the St. Johns River), with dredge material from the basin used to fill parts of the bay and other low-lying areas in order to elevate the land surface. The basin is currently maintained through regular dredging at a depth of 50 ft, with depths at the berths ranging from 30-50 ft. The turning basin, connected to the St. Johns River by a 500-ft-wide entrance channel, will largely contain sound produced by project activities, with the exception of sound propagating east into nearshore Atlantic waters through the entrance channel (see Figure 2-2 of the Navy's application). Bravo Wharf is located in the western corner of the Mayport turning basin.
In order to rehabilitate Bravo Wharf, the Navy proposes to install a new steel sheet pile bulkhead at Bravo Wharf. The entire recapitalization project consists of installing a total of approximately 880 single sheet piles. By March 2018, it is estimated that Phase I will be 100 percent complete and Phase II will be 60 percent complete, with 234 piles remaining to be installed. The wall will be anchored at the top and fill consisting of clean gravel and concrete fill will be placed behind the wall. A concrete cap will be formed along the top and outside face of the wall to tie the entire structure together and provide a berthing surface for vessels. The new bulkhead will be designed for a 50-year service life.
All piles would be driven by vibratory hammer, although impact pile driving may be used as a contingency in cases when vibratory driving is not sufficient to reach the necessary depth. In the unlikely event that impact driving is required, either impact or vibratory driving could occur on a given day, but concurrent use of vibratory and impact drivers would not occur. The Navy estimates that a total of 40 in-water work days may be required to complete pile driving activity, which includes 10 days for contingency impact driving, if necessary.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see
There are four marine mammal species which may inhabit or transit through the waters nearby NSM at the mouth of the St. Johns River and in nearby nearshore Atlantic waters. These include the bottlenose dolphin (
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the vicinity of NSM and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species
In addition, the West Indian manatees may be found in the vicinity of NSM. However, West Indian manatees are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in Table 1. However, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of North Atlantic right whales, humpback whales, and Atlantic spotted dolphins is such that take is not expected to occur.
Regarding North Atlantic right whales, an estimate of potential exposures shows that there is potential for two Level B exposures of North Atlantic right whales from vibratory pile driving. However, the North Atlantic right whale density used in this analysis reflects their expected occurrence in waters outside of the St. Johns River, as there is no applicable density for waters affected by the specified activity. We consider the likelihood of occurrence to be extremely low, given that the only known sighting of a North Atlantic right whale in the St. Johns River occurred in 2011, resulting in a disruption of all boat traffic (Gibbons 2011; Cravey 2016). Therefore, the potential for interaction with this species is unlikely and NMFS does not believe take authorization is warranted for right whales. The Navy has not requested, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize, incidental take of right whales.
The likelihood of encountering a humpback whale in NSM or around the mouth of the river is similarly considered discountable. In the winter, some humpback whales migrate from their summer foraging grounds in the Gulf of Maine to their winter breeding habitat around the Cape Verde Islands and West Indies (Stevick
Concerning Atlantic spotted dolphins, no acoustic exposures were predicted and, from recent observation reports from the Navy from previous construction activity at Naval Station Mayport, no spotted dolphins were observed. Similarly, dolphin research studies that have been conducted in the area also reported zero observed spotted dolphins in the project area (Q. Gibson, pers. comm. with L. McCue, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 2015). We
Bottlenose dolphins are found worldwide in tropical to temperate waters and can be found in all depths from estuarine inshore to deep offshore waters. Temperature appears to limit the range of the species, either directly, or indirectly, for example, through distribution of prey. Off North American coasts, common bottlenose dolphins are found where surface water temperatures range from about 10 °C to 32 °C. In many regions, including the southeastern U.S., separate coastal and offshore populations are known. There is significant genetic, morphological, and hematological differentiation evident between the two ecotypes (
In the Mayport area, four stocks of bottlenose dolphins are currently managed, none of which are protected under the ESA. Of the four stocks—offshore, southern migratory coastal, northern Florida coastal, and Jacksonville estuarine system—only the latter three are likely to occur in the action area. Bottlenose dolphins typically occur in groups of 2-15 individuals (Shane
According to the Scott
Bottlenose dolphins are ubiquitous in coastal waters from the mid-Atlantic through the Gulf of Mexico, and therefore interact with multiple coastal fisheries, including gillnet, trawl, and trap/pot fisheries. Stock-specific total fishery-related mortality and serious injury cannot be directly estimated because of the spatial overlap among stocks of bottlenose dolphins, and because of unobserved fisheries. The primary known source of fishery mortality for the southern migratory stock is the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery (Waring
The northern Florida coastal stock ventures into the St. Johns River in large numbers, but rarely moves past NSM. The mouth of the St. Johns River may serve as a foraging area for this stock and the Jacksonville estuarine stock (Q. Gibson, pers. comm. with L. McCue, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 2015).
The northern Florida coastal stock is susceptible to interactions with similar fisheries as those described above for the southern migratory stock, including gillnet, trawl, and trap/pot fisheries. From 2004-08, 78 stranded dolphins were recovered in northern Florida waters, although it was not possible to determine whether there was evidence of human interaction for the majority of these (Waring
The Jacksonville estuarine system (JES) stock has been defined as separate primarily by the results of photo-identification and genetic studies. The stock range is considered to be bounded in the north by the Georgia-Florida border at Cumberland Sound, extending south to approximately Jacksonville Beach, Florida. This encompasses an area defined during a photo-identification study of bottlenose dolphin residency patterns in the area (Caldwell 2001), and the borders are subject to change upon further study of dolphin residency patterns in estuarine waters of southern Georgia and northern/central Florida. The habitat is comprised of several large brackish rivers, including the St. Johns River, as well as tidal marshes and shallow riverine systems. Three behaviorally different communities were identified during Caldwell's (2001) study: The estuarine waters north (Northern) and south (Southern) of the St. Johns River and the coastal area, all of which differed in density, habitat fidelity and social affiliation patterns. The coastal dolphins are believed to be members of a coastal stock, however (Waring
The JES stock is susceptible to similar fisheries interactions as those described
The original, single stock of coastal dolphins recognized from 1995-2001 was listed as depleted under the MMPA as a result of a 1987-88 mortality event. That designation was retained when the single stock was split into multiple coastal stocks. However, Scott
A UME occurred between 2013 and 2015 spanning the Atlantic coast, which impacted all stocks of bottlenose dolphins in the area. Over 1,800 dolphins stranded in this time period. The preliminary conclusion of the cause of this UME was morbillivirus. The bottlenose dolphin stocks in this area (SJR and coastal areas) may be considered vulnerable to impacts from future activities due to this recent event.
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
• Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 kilohertz (kHz), with best hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing from 10 to less than 100 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. Bottlenose dolphins, the species that could co-occur with proposed survey activities and for which take is estimated, are are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans.
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The
We provided discussion of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat in our
An increase in noise levels from pile driving in waters surrounding NSM is the primary means by which marine mammals and their habitat could be impacted. Marine mammals exposed to elevated sound levels could experience physical and behavioral effects, though the magnitude of potential impact depends on a range of factors on the physical environment and biological state of marine mammals, such as sound type (
There are no known foraging hotspots or other ocean bottom structure of significant biological importance to marine mammals present in the marine waters of the project area, though the surrounding areas may be foraging habitat for the dolphins. The most likely impact to marine mammal habitat occurs from pile driving effects on likely marine mammal prey (
The Mayport turning basin itself is a man-made basin with significant levels of industrial activity and regular dredging, and is unlikely to harbor significant amounts of forage fish. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations. In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with individual pile driving events and the relatively small areas being affected, pile driving activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on marine mammal prey or their habitat.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS's consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to vibratory and impact pile driving. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment) (Table 2).
Recapitalization of Bravo Wharf includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) thresholds are applicable.
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.
In order to determine reasonable SPLs and their associated effects on marine mammals that are likely to result from impact pile driving at NSM, we considered existing measurements from similar physical environments (sandy sediments and water depths greater than 15 ft) for driving of steel sheet piles (all measured at 10 m;
The Mayport turning basin does not represent open water, or free field, conditions. Therefore, sounds would attenuate as per the confines of the basin, and may only reach the full estimated distances to the harassment thresholds via the narrow, east-facing entrance channel. Distances shown in Table 3 are estimated for free-field conditions, but areas are calculated per the actual conditions of the action area. See Figures 6-1 and 6-2 of the Navy's application for a depiction of areas in which each underwater sound threshold is predicted to occur at the project area due to pile driving.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.
For all species, the best scientific information available was considered for use in the marine mammal take assessment calculations. All densities for marine mammals with the possibility of occurring in the project area were calculated from the Navy's Marine Species Density Database and Technical Report (DoN 2017b). Density for bottlenose dolphins is derived from site-specific surveys conducted by the Navy (see Appendix C of the Navy's application for more information); it is not currently possible to identify observed individuals to stock. This survey effort consists of 24 half-day observation periods covering mornings and afternoons during four seasons (December 10-13, 2012, March 4-7, 2013, June 3-6, 2013, and September 9-12, 2013). During each observation period, two observers (a primary observer at an elevated observation point and a secondary observer at ground level) monitored for the presence of marine mammals in the turning basin (0.712 km
Most observations of bottlenose dolphins were of individuals or pairs, although larger groups were occasionally observed (median number of dolphins observed ranged from 1-3.5 across seasons). Densities were calculated using observational data from the primary observer supplemented with data from the secondary observer for grids not visible by the primary observer. Season-specific density was then adjusted by applying a correction factor for observer error (
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
The following assumptions are made when estimating potential incidents of take:
• All marine mammal individuals potentially available are assumed to be present within the relevant area, and thus incidentally taken;
• An individual can only be taken once during a 24-h period;
• There will be 30 total days of vibratory driving and 10 days of contingency of impact pile driving;
• Exposures to sound levels at or above the relevant thresholds equate to take, as defined by the MMPA.
The estimation of marine mammal takes typically uses the following calculation:
The ZOI impact area is estimated using the relevant distances in Table 3, taking into consideration the possible affected area with attenuation due to the constraints of the basin. Because the basin restricts sound from propagating outward, with the exception of the east-facing entrance channel, the radial distances to thresholds are not generally reached.
There are a number of reasons why estimates of potential incidents of take may be conservative, assuming that available density or abundance estimates and estimated ZOI areas are accurate. We assume, in the absence of information supporting a more refined conclusion, that the output of the calculation represents the number of individuals that may be taken by the specified activity. In fact, in the context of stationary activities such as pile driving and in areas where resident animals may be present, this number more realistically represents the number of incidents of take that may accrue to a smaller number of individuals. While pile driving can occur any day throughout the in-water work window, and the analysis is conducted on a per day basis, only a fraction of that time (typically a matter of hours on any given day) is actually spent pile driving. The potential effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing the number of takes is typically not quantified in the take estimation process. For these reasons, these take estimates may be conservative.
The quantitative exercise described above indicates that no incidents of Level A harassment would be expected, independent of the implementation of required mitigation measures. See Table 4 for total estimated incidents of take.
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned). and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Measurements from similar pile driving events were coupled with practical spreading loss to estimate zones of influence (ZOI; see
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven, is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from the pile. It may then be estimated whether the animal was exposed to sound levels constituting incidental harassment on the basis of predicted distances to relevant thresholds in post-processing of observational and acoustic data, and a precise accounting of observed incidences of harassment created. This information may then be used to extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate understanding of actual total takes.
The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Marine mammal observer (MMO) requirements for this construction action are as follows:
(a) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
(b) Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience.
(c) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
(2) Qualified MMOs are trained biologists, and need the following additional minimum qualifications:
(a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
(b) Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols
(c) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
(d) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
(e) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
(f) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone will be monitored for fifteen minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (
(3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes (30 minutes in the case of a large whale) have passed without re-detection of the animal. Should any marine mammal not authorized for Level B harassment in this IHA enter the ensonified area, pile driving will cease until the animal(s) leaves the area and will resume after the observer has determined through re-sighting or by waiting 15 minutes that the animal moved outside the ensonified area. Monitoring will be conducted throughout the time required to drive a pile.
(4) Monitoring of the shutdown zone will continue for 30 minutes following completion of construction activity.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The Navy's proposed monitoring and reporting is also described in their Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, on the Internet at
The Navy will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All marine mammal observers (MMOs) will be trained in marine mammal
• MMOs would be located at the best vantage point(s) in order to properly see the entire shutdown zone and as much of the disturbance zone as possible;
• During all observation periods, observers will use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals;
• If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving at that location will not be initiated until that zone is visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving is underway, the activity would be halted; and
• The shutdown and disturbance zones around the pile will be monitored for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after any pile driving or removal activity.
Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its effectiveness using an adaptive approach. The monitoring biologists will use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and the Navy.
We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, the Navy will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the Navy will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (
• Water conditions (
• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel, and if possible, the correlation to SPLs;
• Duration of marine mammals within the shutdown area;
• Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
• Description of implementation of mitigation measures (
• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
A draft report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or sixty days prior to the requested date of issuance of any future IHA for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving days, and will also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results of those actions and an extrapolated total take estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A final report must be submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report.
The Navy met all monitoring requirements for similar construction activity at nearby Wharf C-2 in NSM (80 FR 55598, 8 September 2015; 78 FR 71566, 1 December 2013 and revised IHA for this activity: 79 FR 27863, 1 September 2014). During the course of both IHAs, the Navy did not exceed authorized take levels. The first IHA (covering the period of May 26 to August 17, 2015) authorized incidental take of 365 bottlenose dolphins and 95 Atlantic spotted dolphins by Level B harassment. Observers documented 272 bottlenose dolphins based on derived correction factors, and no Atlantic spotted dolphins were observed (DoN 2015b). As mentioned in the
An IHA for the second year of construction (covering a period from September 8, 2015 to September 7, 2016) authorized incidental take of 304 total bottlenose dolphins. After applying correction factors to derive a total number of estimated takes, estimated Level B takes were calculated to be 128 bottlenose dolphins (DoN 2016).
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Pile driving activities associated with the wharf construction project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving is happening.
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
The turning basin is not considered important habitat for marine mammals, as it is a man-made, semi-enclosed basin with frequent industrial activity and regular maintenance dredging. The surrounding waters may be an important foraging habitat for the dolphins, but the small area of ensonification does not extend outside of the turning basin and into this foraging habitat (see Figure 6-1 in the Navy's application). Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic sound associated with these activities are expected to affect only a relatively small number of individual marine mammals that may venture near the turning basin, although those effects could be recurring over the life of the project if the same individuals remain in the project vicinity. In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality or injury is anticipated or authorized;
• Behavioral disturbance is possible, but the significance to the affected stocks is expected to be minimal due to:
○ No more than 40 days of pile driving during the proposed authorized year;
○ The time required to drive each pile is brief, with no more than 60 seconds per pile via vibratory driving and no more than 10 minutes per pile via impact driving;
○ Proposed mitigation (
• The absence of any significant habitat within the project area, including known areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction; Noise associated with pile driving will ensonify relatively small areas, the majority of which are within the industrialized turning basin.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
Of the 191 incidents of behavioral harassment proposed to be authorized for bottlenose dolphins, we have no information allowing us to parse the predicted incidents amongst the four stocks that may occur in the project area. Therefore, we assessed the total number of predicted incidents of take against the best abundance estimate for each stock, as though the total would occur for the stock in question. For two of the bottlenose dolphin stocks—Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal and Western North Atlantic Northern Florida coastal stock—the total predicted number of incidents of take authorized would be considered small at 2.82 percent and 15.67 percent, respectively. This estimate assumes that estimated take occurs to a new individual, which is an extremely unlikely scenario and therefore a conservative estimate, as there is likely to be some overlap in both bottlenose dolphin stocks and individuals from day to day. Likelihood of actual take to the latter Northern Florida coastal stock is relatively low, and this estimate assumes all takes would occur to this one stock. In the western North Atlantic, the Northern Florida Coastal Stock is present in coastal Atlantic waters from the Georgia/Florida border south to 29.4° N. (Waring
For the other stock, the Jacksonville Estuarine System stock, if all takes occurred to this one stock, this could take 46.36 percent of the stock (n=412). It is, however, highly unlikely that all takes would occur to this one stock due to their distribution relative to Bravo Wharf and social patterns within stock range. JES bottlenose dolphins range from Cumberland Sound at the Georgia-Florida border south to approximately Jacksonville Beach, FL, an area consisting of coastline and complex estuarine habitat of riverines and tidal marshes. Three behaviorally different communities exist within the JES stock: In estuarine waters north of St. Johns River (termed the Northern area), estuarine waters south of St. Johns River to Jacksonville Beach (the Southern area), and the coastal area (Caldwell 2001). Caldwell (2001) found that dolphins in the northern area exhibit year-round site fidelity and are the most isolated of the three communities. They are also not known to socialize with dolphins in the Southern area, which show summer site fidelity but traverse in and out of the Jacksonville area each year (Caldwell 2001). Dolphins in the coastal area are much more mobile, exhibit fluid social patterns, and show no long-term site fidelity. Furthermore, genetic analysis also supports differentiation from JES dolphins between the Northern and Southern areas (Caldwell 2011). Although members of both groups have been observed outside their preferred areas, it is likely that the majority of JES dolphins would not occur within waters ensonified by project activities. In summary, JES dolphins largely comprise two predominant groups and exhibit strong site fidelity to those areas, which does not significantly overlap with the larger ZOI, which is almost entirely confined within NSM.
Furthermore, assessing potential impacts to individuals or stocks based on take estimates alone, in the absence of further context (
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that consultation under Section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the U.S. Navy for conducting pile driving associated with recapitalization of Bravo Wharf at NSM, Jacksonville, FL from March 13, 2018 to March 12, 2019, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid for one year from March 13, 2018 to March 12, 2019.
2. This IHA is valid only for pile driving activities associated with the Bravo Wharf Recapitalization Project at Naval Station Mayport, Florida.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the Navy, its designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking is the bottlenose dolphin (
(c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the species listed in condition 3(b). See Table 1 for numbers of take authorized.
(d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(e) The Navy shall conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and Navy staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
4. Mitigation measures
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) For all pile driving, the Navy shall implement a minimum shutdown zone of 15 m radius around the pile. If a marine mammal comes within or approaches the shutdown zone, such operations shall cease;
(b) The Navy shall establish monitoring locations as described below. Please also refer to the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan (
i. For all pile driving activities, a minimum of two observers shall be deployed, with one positioned to achieve optimal monitoring of the shutdown zone and the second positioned to achieve optimal monitoring of surrounding waters of the turning basin, the entrance to that basin, and portions of the Atlantic Ocean. If practicable, the second observer should be deployed to an elevated position, preferably opposite Bravo Wharf and with clear sight lines to the wharf and out the entrance channel;
ii. These observers shall record all observations of marine mammals, regardless of distance from the pile being driven, as well as behavior and potential behavioral reactions of the animals. Observations within the turning basin shall be distinguished from those in the entrance channel and nearshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean; and
iii. All observers shall be equipped for communication of marine mammal observations amongst themselves and to other relevant personnel (
(c) Monitoring shall take place from fifteen minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activity through thirty minutes post-completion of pile driving activity. In the event of a delay or shutdown of activity resulting from marine mammals in the shutdown zone, animals shall be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (
(d) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, all pile driving activities at that location shall be halted. If pile driving is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. No pile driving may occur if any whale is detected within the Level B harassment zone (
(e) Monitoring shall be conducted by qualified observers, as described in the Monitoring Plan. Trained observers shall be placed from the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures when applicable through communication with the equipment operator. Observer training must be provided prior to project start and in accordance with the monitoring plan, and shall include instruction on species identification (sufficient to distinguish the species listed in 3(b)), description and categorization of observed behaviors and interpretation of behaviors that may be construed as being reactions to the specified activity, proper completion of data forms, and other basic components of biological monitoring, including tracking of observed animals or groups of animals such that repeat sound exposures may be attributed to individuals (to the extent possible);
(f) The Navy shall use soft start techniques recommended by NMFS for impact pile driving. Soft start requires contractors to provide an initial set of strikes at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced energy strike sets. Soft start shall be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of thirty minutes or longer; and
(g) Pile driving shall only be conducted during daylight hours.
5. Monitoring
The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine mammal monitoring during pile driving activity. Marine mammal monitoring and reporting shall be conducted in accordance with the Monitoring Plan.
(a) The Navy shall collect sighting data and behavioral responses to pile driving for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All observers shall be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors, and shall have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring.
(b) For all marine mammal monitoring, the information shall be recorded as described in the Monitoring Plan.
6. Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
(a) Submit a draft report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA within ninety days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or sixty days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for projects at NSM, whichever comes first. A final report shall be prepared and submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain the informational elements described in the Monitoring Plan, at minimum, and shall also include:
i. Detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any;
ii. Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take, such as ability to track groups or individuals; and
iii. An estimated total take estimate extrapolated from the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction activities, if necessary;
(b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
i. In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, Navy shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following information:
A. Time and date of the incident;
B. Description of the incident;
C. Environmental conditions (
D. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
E. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
F. Fate of the animal(s); and
G. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Navy to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Navy may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
ii. In the event that Navy discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
The report must include the same information identified in 6(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with Navy to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate; and
iii. In the event that Navy discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
7. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed construction activities. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold public meetings of the Council and its Committees.
The meetings will be held Monday, December 11, 2017 through Thursday, December 14, 2017. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held at: The Westin Annapolis, 100 Westgate Circle, Annapolis, MD 21401, telephone: (410) 972-4300.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site,
The following items are on the agenda, though agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's Web site when possible.)
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and service previously furnished by such agencies.
Comments must be received on or before: December 27, 2017.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following products and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a product and services from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 9/22/2017 (82 FR, No. 183), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to provide the service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will provide the service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to provide the service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:
On 10/10/2017 (82 FR, No. 194) and 10/20/2017 (82 FR, No. 202), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product and services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product and services deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product and services are deleted from the Procurement List:
Department of the States Air Force.
Notice of intent.
The United States Air Force (The Air Force) is issuing this notice to advise the public of the intent to prepare a joint Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report with the County of Kern, California. The Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report will assess the potential environmental consequences of various alternatives for development of the Edwards Air Force Base Solar Enhanced Use Lease Project.
The Air Force invites the public, stakeholders, and other interested parties to attend an open house public scoping meeting on December 12, 2017 from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Mojave Veterans Memorial Building located at address 15580 O Street, Mojave, California 93501.
Scoping comments may also be submitted to: Gary Hatch, Environmental Public Affairs, Bldg. 1405 Room 400, Edwards Air Force Base, California 93524; email:
Comments will be accepted at any time during the environmental impact analysis process. However, to ensure the Air Force has sufficient time to consider public input in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, scoping comments should be submitted by January 12, 2017.
The Solar Enhanced Use Lease Project will be sited up to 4,000 acres of available, non-excess Air Force land located on Edwards Air Force Base. Alternatives which meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action have been identified and include the No Action Alternative and two additional alternatives. Alternative A includes full-scale project development of a 600 Megawatt solar PV project and construction of a 150 Megawatt battery storage facility on up to 4,000 acres of Edwards Air Force Base property located in the northwestern corner of the base. Alternative B represents a reduced-scale alternative for the construction and operation of a 200 Megawatt solar PV project and construction of a 150 Megawatt battery storage facility. Under Alternative B, the reduced-scale project will be sited on up to 1,500 acres of Edwards Air Force Base non-excess property within the same project footprint as Alternative A. The project also includes construction of a Gen-tie line of approximately 10-14 miles in total length. The Gen-tie includes a north-south component and an east-west component. There are three alternatives for the north-south Gen-tie connection. The Proposed Action will include only one of these three north-south route options. There are two alternatives for the east-west Gen-tie connection. The Proposed Action will include only one of these two east-west route options. The Proposed Action is subject to the requirements and objectives of Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, as amended. All alternatives for the Proposed Action, including alternatives for the Gen-tie line will result in impacts to floodplains.
The scoping process will help identify the full range of reasonable alternatives, potential impacts, and key issues to be emphasized in the environmental analysis. The Air Force has identified potential impacts to the following resources: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Historical Resources, Water Resources, Land Use, Paleontological Resources, Soils, and Visual Resources. Scoping will assist the Air Force and Kern County in identifying and addressing other issues of concern.
Oral and written comments presented at the public scoping meetings, as well as written comments received by the Air Force or County of Kern will be considered in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Report.
Department of the Air Force, Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.
Meeting notice.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the United
Any member of the public that wishes to attend this meeting or provide input to the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board must contact the Scientific Advisory Board meeting organizer at the phone number or email address listed in this announcement at least five working days prior to the meeting date. Please ensure that you submit your written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Scientific Advisory Board meeting organizer at least five calendar days prior to the meeting commencement date. The Scientific Advisory Board meeting organizer will review all timely submissions and respond to them prior to the start of the meeting identified in this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be considered by the Scientific Advisory Board until the next scheduled meeting.
The Scientific Advisory Board meeting organizer, Lt Col Mike Rigoni at
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by January 26, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0525, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Amy Williams, 571-372-6106.
The provision is included in solicitations for the acquisition of foreign commercial satellite services and requires the offeror to represent whether it is or is not a foreign entity subject to the prohibitions of the statute, or is or is not offering foreign commercial satellite services provided by such a foreign entity. If the offeror
Department of Education (ED), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 27, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Rebecca Walawender, 202-245-7399.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Department of Education (ED), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 27, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Rebecca Walawender, 202-245-7399.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department
Department of Energy.
Notice of public availability of FY 2016 Service Contract inventories.
In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), the Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing this notice to advise the public on the availability of the FY 2016 Service Contract inventory. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that DOE completed in FY 2016. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP).
FY 2016 government-wide service contract inventory can be found at
DOE has posted its FY 2015 Analysis and the FY 2016 Analysis Plan at:
Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Jeff Davis in the Strategic Programs Division at 202-287-1877 or
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
1. Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824d (2012), and 18 CFR part 35 (2017), require, among other things, that all rates, terms, and conditions for jurisdictional services be filed with the Commission. In Order No. 2001, the Commission revised its public utility filing requirements and established a requirement for public utilities, including power marketers, to file Electric Quarterly Reports.
2. The Commission requires sellers with market-based rate authorization to file Electric Quarterly Reports summarizing contractual and transaction information related to their market-based power sales as a condition for retaining that authorization.
3. In Order No. 2001, the Commission stated that,
[i]f a public utility fails to file a[n] Electric Quarterly Report (without an appropriate request for extension), or fails to report an agreement in a report, that public utility may forfeit its market-based rate authority and may be required to file a new application for market-based rate authority if it wishes to resume making sales at market-based rates.
4. The Commission further stated that,
[o]nce this rule becomes effective, the requirement to comply with this rule will supersede the conditions in public utilities' market-based rate authorizations, and failure to comply with the requirements of this rule will subject public utilities to the same consequences they would face for not satisfying the conditions in their rate authorizations, including possible revocation of their authority to make wholesale power sales at market-based rates.
5. Pursuant to these requirements, the Commission has revoked the market-based rate tariffs of market-based rate
6. Sellers must file Electric Quarterly Reports consistent with the procedures set forth in Order Nos. 2001, 768,
7. In the event that any of the above-captioned market-based rate sellers has already filed its Electric Quarterly Reports in compliance with the Commission's requirements, its inclusion herein is inadvertent. Such market-based rate seller is directed, within 15 days of the date of issuance of this order, to make a filing with the Commission identifying itself and providing details about its prior filings that establish that it complied with the Commission's Electric Quarterly Report filing requirements.
8. If any of the above-captioned market-based rate sellers does not wish to continue having market-based rate authority, it may file a notice of cancellation with the Commission pursuant to section 205 of the FPA to cancel its market-based rate tariff.
(A) Within 15 days of the date of issuance of this order, each public utility listed in the caption of this order shall file with the Commission all delinquent Electric Quarterly Reports. If a public utility subject to this order fails to make the filings required in this order, the Commission will revoke that public utility's market-based rate authorization and will terminate its electric market-based rate tariff. The Secretary is hereby directed, upon expiration of the filing deadline in this order, to promptly issue a notice, effective on the date of issuance, listing the public utilities whose tariffs have been revoked for failure to comply with the requirements of this order and the Commission's Electric Quarterly Report filing requirements.
(B) The Secretary is hereby directed to publish this order in the
By the Commission.
Take notice that on November 17, 2017, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Clear River Energy Center LLC, (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE), New England Power Company, New England Participating Transmission Owners (collectively, Respondents) alleging that ISO-NE's Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff is unjust and unreasonable, anticompetitive and unduly discriminatory, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
Complainants certifies that a copy of the complaint was served on respondents.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondents' answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondents' answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on November 3, 2017, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gas), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in Docket No. CP18-13-000, an application under sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act for the proposed Line 8000 Replacement Project (Project). Specifically, Columbia Gas requests authorization to: (i) Replace approximately 14 miles of bare steel pipeline; and (ii) abandon multiple taps, all located in Mineral County, West Virginia and Allegany County, Maryland, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The project costs approximately $18.2 million and Columbia Gas requests pre-determination of rolled-in rate treatment and surcharges. The Project is part of Columbia Gas's multi-year, comprehensive modernization program to address its aging infrastructure. This
Any questions regarding this Application should be directed counsel for Columbia, Lauri Newton, Director of Regulatory and Commercial Law, TransCanada Corporation, 700 Louisiana St, Houston, TX 77002; Telephone: (832) 320-5177.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Tennessee's request to revise its EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.
EPA approves the State of Tennessee's authorized program revision as of November 27, 2017.
Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On October 17, 2017, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) submitted an application titled “Construction Stormwater System” for revision to its EPA-approved program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed TDEC's request to revise its EPA-authorized Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision/modification set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Tennessee's request to revise its Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 122 and 125 is being published in the
TDEC was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as show in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
1.
2.
3.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
1.
2.
3.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the Commonwealth of Kentucky's request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.
EPA approves the authorized program revision for the Commonwealth of Kentucky's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program as of December 27, 2017 if no timely request for a public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency.
Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On October 9, 2017, the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (KY DEP) submitted an application titled “Compliance Monitoring Data Portal” for revision to its EPA-approved drinking water program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed KY DEP's request to revise its EPA-authorized program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Kentucky's request to revise its Part 142 —National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 141 is being published in the
KY DEP was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the Commonwealth of Kentucky's request to revise its authorized public water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today's
(1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
(2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the
(3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity. In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before January 26, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
47 CFR 73.88 states that the licensee of each broadcast station is required to satisfy all reasonable complaints of blanketing interference within the 1 V/m contour.
47 CFR 73.318(b) states that after January 1, 1985, permittees or licensees who either (1) commence program tests, (2) replace the antennas, or (3) request facilities modifications and are issued a new construction permit must satisfy all complaints of blanketing interference which are received by the station during a one year period.
47 CFR 73.318(c) states that a permittee collocating with one or more existing stations and beginning program tests on or after January 1, 1985, must assume full financial responsibility for remedying new complaints of blanketing interference for a period of one year.
Under 47 CFR 73.88, and 73.685(d), the license is financially responsible for resolving complaints of interference within one year of program test authority when certain conditions are met. After the first year, a license is only required to provide technical assistance to determine the cause of interference.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before December 27, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
This study's collection of information on actual speeds and performance of fixed and mobile broadband connections delivered to consumers by ISPs has been reported to be of great value to academic researchers, manufacturers and technology providers, broadband providers, public interest groups and other diverse stakeholders. Validation of fixed broadband subscribed speeds as opposed to actual speeds by participating ISPs remains unique to this program and provides a context for measured speeds. Mobile broadband performance information is measured using the FCC Speed Test app for Android and iPhone devices to test the upload and download speed, latency and packet loss, as well as the wireless performance characteristics of the broadband connection and the kind of handsets and versions of operating systems tested. Information the FCC Speed Test App (“Application”) collects is limited to information used to measure volunteers' mobile broadband service and no personally identifiable information, such as subscribers' name, phone number or unique identifiers associated with a device is collected. Software-based tools and online tools exist that can test consumer's broadband connections, including a set of consumer tools launched by the FCC in conjunction with the National Broadband Plan. However, these tools track speeds experienced by consumers, rather than speeds delivered directly to a consumer by an ISP. The distinction is important for supporting Agency broadband policy analysis, as ISPs advertise speeds and performance delivered rather than speeds experienced, which suffers from degradation outside of an ISP's control.
No other dedicated panel of direct fixed and mobile broadband performance measurement using publicly documented methodologies using free and add-free technologies exists today in the country. The program will continue to support existing software-based tools and online tools but the focus of the program will remain the direct measurement of broadband performance delivered to the consumer. The collection effort also has specific elements focused on further network performance statistics, time of day parameters, and other elements affecting consumers' broadband experience that are not tracked elsewhere. The information to be confirmed by ISP Partners about their subscribers or technical and market data regarding the broadband services they provide is unavailable from other sources.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver) as Receiver for The RiverBank, Wyoming, Minnesota, intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of The RiverBank on October 7, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver) as Receiver for Columbia River Bank, The Dalles, Oregon, intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of Columbia River Bank on January 22, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Application for Exemption from Prohibited Service at Savings and Loan Holding Companies (FR LL-12, OMB No. 7100-0338).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Some or all of the information submitted may be withheld pursuant to sections (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(8) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), (b)(6), (b)(8)). The applicability of these exemptions would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Securities Transactions Pursuant to Regulation H (Reg H-3; OMB No. 7100-0196).
Comments must be submitted on or before January 26, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposal prior to giving final approval.
Inasmuch as the Board does not collect or receive any information concerning securities transactions pursuant to these requirements, no issues of confidentiality normally will arise. If, however, these records were to come into the possession of the Board, they may be protected from disclosure pursuant to exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), under the standards set forth in
Additionally, if such information were included in the work papers of System examiners or abstracted in System reports of examination, the information also may be protected under exemption 8 of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8). Any withholding determination would be made on a case-by-case basis in response to a specific request for disclosure of the information.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Correction.
This document contains a correction to the information collection notice that was published in the
Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 202-208-4949, or email
In the information collection document appearing at 82 FR 51256, on November 3, 2017, on page 51256, second column, paragraph 1, lines 1 through 7 are corrected to replace the reference to an outdated version of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119. The 1998 version was superseded in 2016.
The current version may be found on Standards.gov:
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB information collection.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a renewal of the currently approved information collection requirement regarding Implementation of Information Technology Security Provision. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before December 27, 2017.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Kevin Funk, Program Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, at 202-357-5805 or via email at
Clause 552.239-71 requires contractors, within 30 days after contract award, to submit an IT Security Plan to the Contracting Officer and Contacting Officer's Representative that describes the processes and procedures that will be followed to ensure appropriate security of IT resources that are developed, processed, or used under the contract. The clause will also require that contractors submit written proof of IT security authorization six months after contract award, and verify that the IT Security Plan remains valid annually.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the GSAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0300, Implementation of Information Technology Security Provision, in all correspondence.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Evaluation of Effectiveness of NIOSH Publications: NIOSH Customer Satisfaction and Impact (CSI) Survey (OMB Control Number 0920-0544, Expiration Date 4/30/2010)—Reinstatement with Changes—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
As mandated in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-596), the mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to conduct research and investigations on work-related disease and injury and to disseminate information for preventing identified workplace hazards (Sections 20 (a)(1) and (d)). NIOSH is proposing a Reinstatement with Changes to continue a two-year study to collect stakeholder feedback on the effectiveness of its products and their dissemination. This dual responsibility of NIOSH's mission recognizes the need to translate research into workplace application if it is to impact worker safety and well-being. NIOSH, through its communication efforts, seeks to promote greater awareness of occupational hazards and their control, influence public policy and regulatory action, shape national research priorities, change organizational practices and individual behavior, and ultimately, improve American working life. NIOSH's primary communication vehicle is its series of numbered publications catalogued by the Institute as Policy Documents, Technical Documents, and Educational Documents.
The aforementioned types of documents are available to the public through the use of mailing lists, NIOSH eNews, the NIOSH Web site, promotion at conferences, and by other means. In FY 2015, combined digital downloads and hard copy distributions of NIOSH publications registered at over 790,000. Yet, these numbers tell little of whether the reports are reaching all of the appropriate audiences, or whether the information is perceived as credible and useful by the recipients. Therefore, a Customer Satisfaction Survey (CSS) was conducted in 2003 and a follow-up CSS in 2010 to assess customer satisfaction and perceived impact of NIOSH publications. The proposed survey seeks to update the data collected for the 2010 survey (OMB Control Number 0920-0544, expiration date 4/30/10) and gather data on outreach initiatives NIOSH has undertaken in recent years. The findings from the study completed in 2010 confirmed that NIOSH continues to be a credible source of occupational safety and health information, NIOSH publications were being used more frequently than in previous years, and respondents are relying more on the NIOSH Web site and other electronic resources. However, the 2010 CSS also revealed that the percentage of respondents who looked to NIOSH for Occupational Safety and Health information dropped from 84% in 2003 to 76% in 2009 (2010 survey data collection). Results from the 2010 CSS suggest that NIOSH needs to collaborate more with stakeholder associations to assess the needs of those in the OSH community who are not using NIOSH resources. Since then, NIOSH has established a partner database, which documents the private companies, professional associations, and labor unions listed as partners on various projects. Another recommendation is that NIOSH develop strategies to increase awareness of electronic resources and newsletters and develop a broader range of tools that have direct application and provide clearer guidance on policy.
The currently proposed Customer Satisfaction and Impact (CSI) Survey is a reinstatement of the 2010 study with changes to the instrument and data collection methods to account for new products and technologies that did not exist in 2010. It is an effort by the agency to obtain current estimates of consumer use/benefit from NIOSH communication products as a whole, as well as to determine the adequacy of the agency's circulation/delivery practices in light of changing distribution approaches and technologies. The CSI will account for changes in NIOSH publications, digital product formats, and new dissemination channels emerging since the last collection of survey data. As offered with many NIOSH publications, the CSI will also solicit more audience-based information that reflects the new media environment. Such expansions will yield findings that show how well customer service practices at NIOSH have followed the 2003 and 2010 recommendations, as well as provide insights into how users seek and use NIOSH information in the current digital environment.
NIOSH will direct the survey to members of the following occupational safety and health organizations: American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), American College of Occupational and Environmental
NIOSH estimates that it will take 312 total burden hours to complete information collections, compared to 205 burden hours estimated for the 2010 CSS. There are no costs to the respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
CDC Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program (DPRP)(OMB Control Number 0920-0909, exp. 12/31/2017)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Evidence from efficacy and effectiveness research studies has shown that lifestyle modifications leading to weight loss and increased physical activity can prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in persons with prediabetes or those at high risk of developing type 2. To translate these research findings into practice, Section 399V-3 of Public Law 111-148, directed CDC “to determine eligibility of entities to deliver community-based type 2 diabetes prevention services,” monitor and evaluate the services, and provide technical assistance. To this end, CDC's Division of Diabetes Translation (DDT) established and administers the DPRP as part of the National Diabetes Prevention Program, which recognizes organizations that deliver type 2 diabetes prevention programs according to requirements set forth in the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Recognition Program Standards and Operating Procedures” (Standards).
Currently CDC has 1,363 organizations in its DPRP registry. On July 7, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP). Sections 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh § 424.59)
Previously, in 2011, CDC received OMB approval to collect organizational and de-identified participant information needed to administer the DPRP (OMB No. 0920-0909, expired 11/30/2014). In 2015, CDC renewed these Standards for three years (OMB No. 0920-0909, expires 12/31/2017) to continue collecting information needed to manage the DPRP. Virtual organizations were added in the 2015 Standards based on new published evidence and to reach a broader audience.
Two levels of CDC recognition have been provided: Pending recognition for new applicants that have submitted an application and meet eligibility criteria defined by the Standards, and Full recognition for programs that have demonstrated effectiveness according to the Standards. CMS allows for a new recognition status, Preliminary, in addition to Pending and Full. MDPP reimbursement is directly tied to Preliminary and Full statuses. The intent of this current Standards' revision is to align with the CMS MDPP that will be finalized in 2017 and is scheduled to go in effect January 1, 2018, and to account for new evidence in the type 2 diabetes prevention literature. The MDPP benefit will scale type 2 diabetes prevention programs more broadly.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). NHAMCS collects facility and visit information on ambulatory care services utilization in non-Federal, short stay hospitals in the United States.
CDC must receive written comments on or before January 26, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0101 by any of the following methods:
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) (OMB Control Number 0920-0278, Expiration Date 02/28/2018)—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on “utilization of health care” in the United States. The National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) has conducted annually since 1992. NCHS is seeking OMB approval to extend this survey for an additional three years.
The target universe of the NHAMCS is in-person visits made to emergency departments (EDs) of non-Federal, short-stay hospitals (hospitals with an average length of stay of less than 30 days) that have at least six beds for inpatient use, and with a specialty of general (medical or surgical) or children's general.
NHAMCS was initiated to complement the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS, OMB Control Number 0920-0234, Expiration Date 03/31/2019), which provides similar data concerning patient visits to physicians' offices. NAMCS and NHAMCS are the principal sources of data on ambulatory care provided in the United States.
NHAMCS provides a range of baseline data on the characteristics of the users and providers of hospital ambulatory medical care. Data collected include patients' demographic characteristics, reason(s) for visit, providers' diagnoses, diagnostic services, medications, and disposition. These data, together with trend data, may be used to monitor the effects of change in the health care system, for the planning of health services, improving medical education, determining health care work force needs, and assessing the health status of the population.
Starting 2018, CDC will implement the ED component of NHAMCS. However, between December 2017 and May 2018, the 2017 survey will run concurrently with the 2018 survey. This is typical with any data collection cycle: It begin in the last month of the preceding year and ends around the middle of the following year. For the 2017 data collection, CDC will collect information on all three settings (ED, OPD, and ASL). For this three-year request, CDC does not expect substantive changes or supplements for the survey.
Users of NHAMCS data include, but are not limited to, congressional offices, Federal agencies, state and local governments, schools of public health, colleges and Universities, private industry, nonprofit foundations, professional associations, clinicians, researchers, administrators, and health planners.
There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1,806.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled ZEN Colombia Study: Zika in Pregnant Women and Children in Colombia to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on August 30, 2017 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
ZEN Colombia Study: Zika in Pregnant Women and Children in Colombia (OMB Control Number 0920-1190, expires 07/31/2019)—Revision—National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Zika virus (ZIKV) infection is a mosquito-borne flavivirus transmitted by Aedes species mosquitoes, and also through sexual and mother-to-child transmission; laboratory-acquired infections have also been reported. Health officials observed sporadic evidence of human ZIKV infection in Africa and Asia prior to 2007, when an outbreak of ZIKV caused an estimated 5,000 infections in the State of Yap, Federated States of Micronesia. Since then, health officials have found evidence of ZIKV in 65 countries and territories, mostly in Central and South America. Common symptoms of ZIKV in humans include rash, fever, arthralgia, and nonpurulent conjunctivitis. The illness is usually mild and self-limited, with symptoms lasting for several days to a week; however, based on previous outbreaks, some infections are asymptomatic. The prevalence of asymptomatic infection in the current Central and South American epidemic is unknown.
Although the clinical presentation of ZIKV infection is typically mild, ZIKV infection in pregnancy can cause microcephaly and related brain abnormalities when fetuses are exposed in utero. Other adverse pregnancy outcomes related to ZIKV infection remain under study, and include pregnancy loss, other major birth defects, arthrogryposis, eye abnormalities, and neurologic abnormalities.
As the spectrum of adverse health outcomes potentially related to ZIKV infection continues to grow, large gaps remain in our understanding of ZIKV infection in pregnancy. These include the full spectrum of adverse health outcomes in pregnant women, fetuses, and infants associated with ZIKV infection; the relative contributions of sexual transmission and mosquito-borne transmission to occurrence of infections in pregnancy; and variability in the risk of adverse fetal outcomes by gestational week of maternal infection or symptoms of infection. There is an urgency to fill these large gaps in our understanding given the rapidity of the epidemic's spread and the severe health outcomes associated with ZIKV to date.
Colombia's Instituto Nacional de Salud (INS) began surveillance for ZIKV in 2015, reporting the first autochthonous transmission in October 2015 in the north of the country. As of December 2016, Colombia has reported over 106,000-suspected ZIKV cases, with over 19,000 of them among pregnant women. With a causal link established between ZIKV infection in pregnancy and microcephaly, there is an urgent need to understand: How to prevent ZIKV transmission; the full spectrum of adverse maternal, fetal, and infant health outcomes associated with ZIKV infection; and risk factors for occurrence of these outcomes. To answer these questions, INS and the CDC will follow 5,000 women enrolled in the first trimester of pregnancy, their male partners, and their infants, in various cities in Colombia where ZIKV transmission is currently ongoing.
The primary study objectives are to: (1) Describe the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the study population; (2) Identify risk factors for ZIKV infection in pregnant women and their infants. These include behaviors such as use of mosquito-bite prevention measures or condoms, and factors associated with maternal-to-child transmission; (3) Assess the risk for adverse maternal, fetal, and infant outcomes associated with ZIKV infection; (4) Assess modifiers of the risk for adverse outcomes among pregnant women and their infants following ZIKV infection. This includes investigating associations with gestational age at infection, presence of ZIKV symptoms, extended viremia, mode of transmission, prior infections or immunizations, and co-infections.
The project aims to enroll approximately 5,000 women, 1,250 male partners, 4,500 newborns, and a subset of 900 infants/children. Pregnant women will be recruited in the first trimester of pregnancy for study enrollment, followed by assessments during pregnancy (every other week until 32 weeks gestation and monthly thereafter), and within 10 days postpartum. At all visits, participants will complete visit-specific questionnaires. In addition to the questionnaires, at all pregnancy and delivery visits, participants will receive Colombian national recommended clinical care and provide samples for laboratory testing.
Researchers will recruit male partners around the time of the pregnant partners' study enrollment, followed by monthly visits until his pregnant partner reaches the third trimester (approximately 27 weeks gestation). If the male partner contracts ZIKV during this time, visits will occur every other week until the partner has two negative consecutive tests for ZIKV or the pregnancy ends. At all study visits, male partners will complete visit-specific questionnaires and provide samples for laboratory testing.
Researchers will follow all newborns of mothers participating in the study every other week from birth to 6 months of age. At all visits, infants will receive national recommended clinical care (at birth and follow-up visits at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months), provide samples for laboratory testing, and mothers will complete study-specific questionnaires about infant ZIKV symptoms and developmental milestones. During follow-up, infants will also have cranial ultrasounds, their head circumference measured, and hearing and vision tests. For mothers and their infants and as part of clinical care, researchers will abstract relevant information from medical records.
The revised information collection package includes the following changes.
CDC will use study results to guide recommendations made by both INS and CDC to prevent ZIKV infection; to improve counseling of patients about risks to themselves, their pregnancies, their partners, and their infants; and to help agencies prepare to provide services to affected children and families. Participation in this study is voluntary and there are no costs to participants other than their time.
The total burden hours are 14,210.
The PREP Multi-Component Evaluation contains three components: A Design and Implementation Study, a Performance Analysis Study, and an Impact and In-Depth Implementation Study. Data collection related to the Design and Implementation Study is complete; data collection related to the Performance Analysis Study will be complete in late summer 2017. This notice is specific to data collection activities for the Impact and In-Depth Implementation Study, which is being conducted in four sites. The proposed extension is necessary to complete ongoing follow-up data collection. The resulting data will be used in a rigorous program impact analysis to assess the effectiveness of each program in reducing teen sexual activity and associated risk behaviors.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in Table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by January 26, 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 26, 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
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
In April 1996, the FDA Export, Reform, and Enhancement Act of 1996 (FDAERA) (Pub. L. 104-134) amended sections 801(e) and 802 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 381(e) and 382). It was designed to ease restrictions on exportation of unapproved pharmaceuticals, biologics, and devices regulated by FDA. Section 801(e)(4) of the FDAERA provides that persons exporting certain FDA-regulated products may request FDA to certify that the products meet the requirements of sections 801(e) and 802 or other requirements of the FD&C Act. This section of the law requires FDA to issue certification within 20 days of receipt of the request and to charge firms up to $175 for the certifications. In January 2011, section 801(e)(4)(A) was amended by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (Pub. L. 111-353) to provide authorization for export certification fees for food and animal feed.
This section of the FD&C Act authorizes FDA to issue export certificates for regulated food, animal feed, pharmaceuticals, biologics, and devices that are legally marketed in the United States, as well as for these same products that are not legally marketed but are acceptable to the importing country, as specified in sections 801(e) and 802 of the FD&C Act. FDA has developed various types of certificates that satisfy the requirements of section 801(e)(4)(B) of the FD&C Act. Four of those certificates are discussed in this notice: (1) Certificates to Foreign Governments, (2) Certificates of Exportability, (3) Certificates of a Pharmaceutical Product, and (4) Non-Clinical Research Use Only Certificates. FDA has updated the certificates as part of the proposed collection of information to account for the amendment authorizing export certification fees for food and animal feed. Table 1 lists the different certificates and details their uses:
FDA will continue to rely on self-certification by manufacturers for the first three types of certificates listed in table 1. Manufacturers are requested to self-certify that they are in compliance with all applicable requirements of the FD&C Act, not only at the time that they submit their request to the appropriate center, but also at the time that they submit the certification to the foreign government.
The appropriate FDA centers will review product information submitted by firms in support of their certificate and any suspected case of fraud will be referred to the appropriate offices.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Grandfathering Policy for Packages and Homogenous Cases of Product Without a Product Identifier.” This draft guidance specifies whether and under what circumstances packages and homogenous cases of product not labeled with a product identifier shall be exempted, as grandfathered, from certain requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act).
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by January 26, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance. Submit either electronic or written comments concerning the collection of information proposed in the draft guidance by January 26, 2018.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• 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
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
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Abha Kundi, Office of Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3130,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Grandfathering Policy for Packages and Homogenous Cases of Product Without a Product Identifier.” On November 27, 2013, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) (Title II of Pub. L. 113-54) was signed into law. Section 202 of the DSCSA added section 582 to the FD&C Act, which established product tracing requirements for manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers. The DSCSA phases in its requirements over a period of 10 years.
A critical set of phased product tracing requirements outlined in section 582 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1) relate to the product identifier. Among its provisions, section 582 requires that each package and homogenous case of product in the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain bear a product identifier that is encoded with the product's standardized numerical identifier, lot number, and expiration date by specific dates. Under the statute, manufacturers must begin affixing or imprinting a product identifier to each package and homogenous case of a product intended to be introduced into commerce no later than November 27, 2017. Repackagers are required to do the same no later than November 27, 2018.
Sections 582(c)(2), (d)(2), and (e)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act restrict trading partners' ability to engage in transactions involving packages and homogenous cases of product that are not labeled with a product identifier after specific dates. Beginning November 27, 2018, repackagers may not engage in a transaction involving a package or homogenous case of a product that is not encoded with a product identifier. Similar restrictions go into effect for wholesale distributors and dispensers on November 27, 2019, and November 27, 2020, respectively.
Section 582(a)(5)(A) of the FD&C Act gives FDA authority to exempt packages and homogenous cases of product without a product identifier from the product tracing requirements discussed above. We are required to issue guidance that specifies whether and under what circumstances we will exercise this authority. The draft guidance addresses this requirement. As explained in the draft guidance, only packages and homogenous cases of product that are in the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain at the time of the effective date of the requirements of section 582 are eligible for an exemption under section 582(a)(5)(A).
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on the grandfathering policy for packages and homogenous cases of product without a product identifier. Guidance documents generally do not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. For this particular document, section 582 of the FD&C Act gives FDA authority to issue binding guidance specifying the circumstances under which packages and homogenous cases of product that are not labeled with a product identifier shall be exempted from the requirements of section 582 of the FD&C Act. Thus, insofar as section IV of this
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by December 27, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7729,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports FDA regulations; specifically, in part 11 (21 CFR part 11), which sets forth criteria for acceptance of electronic records, electronic signatures, and handwritten signatures executed to electronic records as equivalent to paper records. Under these regulations, records and reports may be submitted to FDA electronically provided the Agency has stated its ability to accept the records electronically in an Agency-established public docket and that the other requirements of part 11 are met.
The recordkeeping provisions in part 11 (§§ 11.10, 11.30, 11.50, and 11.300) require the following standard operating procedures to assure appropriate use of, and precautions for, systems using electronic records and signatures: (1) § 11.10 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use closed systems to create, modify, maintain, or transmit electronic records; (2) § 11.30 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use open systems to create, modify, maintain, or transmit electronic records; (3) § 11.50 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use electronic signatures; and (4) § 11.300 specifies controls to ensure the security and integrity of electronic signatures based upon use of identification codes in combination with passwords. The reporting provision (§ 11.100) requires persons to certify in writing to FDA that they will regard electronic signatures used in their systems as the legally binding equivalent of traditional handwritten signatures.
The burden created by the information collection provision of this regulation is a one-time burden associated with the creation of standard operating procedures, validation, and certification. The Agency anticipates the use of electronic media will substantially reduce the paperwork burden associated with maintaining FDA required records. The respondents are businesses and other for-profit organizations, State or local governments, Federal Agencies, and nonprofit institutions.
In the
We therefore estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the public workshop entitled “Safety Assessment for IND Safety Reporting.” Convened by the Duke-Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University and supported by a cooperative agreement with FDA, the purpose of the public workshop is to bring the stakeholder community together to discuss a variety of topics related to “Safety Assessment for Investigational New Drug (IND) Safety Reporting.” This public workshop is organized in response to public comments received to Docket No. FDA-2015-D-4562 for the draft guidance “Safety Assessment for IND Safety Reporting” issued in December 2015 requesting a public meeting to discuss the draft guidance and its implications. The public workshop is intended to engage external stakeholders in discussions related to finalizing the draft guidance entitled “Safety Assessment for IND Safety Reporting.”
The public workshop will be held on January 11, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern Time. See the
The public workshop will be held at the Conference Center at 1777 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20006. For additional travel and hotel information, please refer to the following Web site:
Lauren Wedlake, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6362, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-2728,
The IND safety reporting requirements for human drugs and biological products being studied under an IND are stated in § 312.32 (21 CFR 312.32). In 2012, FDA published final guidance for industry and investigators regarding implementation of these requirements entitled “Safety Reporting Requirements for INDs and BA/BE Studies.
Timely reporting of meaningful safety information allows FDA to consider whether any changes in study conduct should be made beyond those initiated by the sponsor and allows investigators to make any needed changes to protect subjects. Simply reporting all serious adverse events, however, including those where there is little reason to consider them suspected adverse reactions (suspected adverse reactions being those with a reasonable possibility of having been caused by the drug), does not serve this purpose because it may obscure safety information that is relevant to the investigational drug. Sponsors' effective processes for a systematic approach to safety surveillance, coupled with IND safety reporting of suspected adverse reactions to FDA and all participating investigators (and subsequent reporting to involved institutional review boards), allows all parties to focus on important safety issues and to take actions to minimize the risks of participation in a clinical trial. Sponsors are encouraged to have internal processes for governing the safety surveillance and safety reporting for their development programs. Such process may include
This public workshop is being held in response to public comments received to Docket No. FDA-2015-D-4562 for the draft guidance entitled “Safety Assessment for IND Safety Reporting” issued in December 2015 requesting a public meeting to discuss the draft guidance recommendations and their implications, including the new recommendations regarding the formation of a safety assessment committee and the submission of a portion of the safety surveillance plan to the IND before initiating phase 2 or 3 studies. The public workshop is intended to engage external stakeholders in discussions related to finalizing the draft guidance entitled “Safety Assessment for IND Safety Reporting.”
During the public workshop, speakers and participants will address a range of issues related to the draft guidance “Safety Assessment for IND Safety Reporting”, issued in December 2015. Items for discussion will include topics raised in public comments submitted to the draft guidance docket, including but not limited to: The entity that conducts aggregate analysis of safety data for IND safety reporting, concerns with unblinding of data and trial integrity, methods for determining the threshold for reporting, and developing and documenting a plan for safety surveillance. Furthermore, input will be sought on other factors that drive over-reporting of safety events that do not meet the definition of a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction.
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register online by January 8, 2018, midnight Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted. Duke-Margolis will post on its Web site if registration closes before the day of the public workshop.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Sarah Supsiri at the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, 202-791-9561,
FDA has verified the Web site addresses in this document, as of the date this document publishes in the
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR must be received no later than January 26, 2018.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
There are proposed revisions to the currently approved Outreach Program PIMS measures. The proposed Outreach PIMS measures reflect a reduced number of measures including the following: 16 process measures applicable to all awardees (previously 22), consolidation of the project-specific measures (currently 7, previously 8), and 8 clinical measures (previously 9). In addition, the proposed measures include the addition of two Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) calculators: The CDC Heart Age calculator and the CDC BMI Percentile Calculator for Child and Teen. Data for both calculators will be collected on an aggregate level and only from awardees with applicable projects; the CDC Heart Age calculator is specific to awardees participating in the Health Improvement Special Project while the CDC BMI calculator is for projects focusing on childhood obesity.
Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours:
HRSA specifically requests comments on: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Information Collection Request Title: Rural Health Network Development Program, OMB No. 0906-0010—Revision
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Derpartment of Health and Human Services.
Notice
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this Information Collection Request must be received no later than January 26, 2018.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
RHND funded programs promote population health management and the transition towards value based care through diverse network membership that include traditional and non-traditional network partners collaborating to address the local healthcare needs of the targeted community. Evidence of program effectiveness demonstrated by outcome data and program sustainability are integral components of the program. This is a three-year competitive program for mature networks composed of at least three members that are separate, existing health care providers entities.
For this revised ICR, there are proposed changes to several measures that include network infrastructure, sustainability, community impact, and access and quality of healthcare.
HRSA specifically requests comments on: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than January 26, 2018.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
This new ICR is being developed to replace the existing ICR (OMB control number 0915-0323), for which HRSA has collected RSR data since 2009. These revisions will account for significant modifications to several variables within the client report and XML file, which will improve data quality and align data collection efforts with recent Policy Clarification Notices (PCN 16-02). HRSA will continue to collect and report the client-level data elements supplied by the existing ICR through 2019. In 2019, the existing ICR will expire and HRSA will collect and report on the data elements defined in the new ICR. While there will be no overlap in the data collected and reported between the existing and new ICR, HRSA is submitting this new ICR in tandem with the existing ICR to allow recipients the ability to make modifications to their RSR systems between the two reporting periods, and continue to collect and report on both the old and new variables without interruption.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than January 26, 2018.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.
This revision to the clearance package will incorporate two new forms for participants: (1) The CSF Verification Form, which is used to verify transfers to critical shortage facilities not already recorded in the online portal; and (2) the NURSE Corps Nurse Faculty Employment Verification Form, which asks for personal and employment information to specifically determine if nurse faculty participants are eligible to transfer to another approved accredited school of nursing.
Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours:
The estimates of reporting burden for Applicants are as follows:
The estimates of reporting for Participants are as follows:
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that a meeting of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) will take place and will be open to the public.
The CFSAC in person meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 13, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. and Thursday, December 14, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. (EST).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 800, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
Commander Gustavo Ceinos, MPH, Designated Federal Officer, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 728F6, Washington, DC 20201. Please direct all inquiries to
The CFSAC is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The purpose of the CFSAC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH), on issues related to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). The issues can include factors affecting access and care for persons with ME/CFS; the science and definition of ME/CFS; and broader public health, clinical, research, and educational issues related to ME/CFS.
The agenda for this meeting, call-in information and location will be posted on the CFSAC Web site
Request to speak to the committee: Each day of the meeting an hour has been scheduled for public comments via telephone or in person. Individuals will have three minutes to present their comments. Priority will be given to individuals who have not provided public comment within the previous twelve months. We are unable to place international calls for public comments. To request a time slot for public comments, please send an email to
An email from the CFSAC Support Team will be sent back to you confirming receipt of your request. If the email confirmation is not received within two working days, please call 202-690-7650.
Request to provide written comments: Individuals who would like to provide only written testimony to the Committee members and do not wish to speak, should indicate so in their email when submitting their written testimony. It is preferred, but not required, that the submitted testimony be prepared in digital format and typed using a 12-pitch font. Written comments must not exceed 5 single-space pages, and it is preferred, but not required that the document be prepared in the MS Word format. Please note that PDF files, handwritten notes, charts, and photographs cannot be accepted. Materials submitted should not include sensitive personal information, such as social security number, birthdates, driver's license number, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. If you wish to remain anonymous please specify this in your email, otherwise your name will be included at the top of your written comments.
The Committee welcomes input on any topic related to ME/CFS.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct at GU by falsifying Western blot images and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) data included in an unfunded grant application, R01 CA193344-01A1, and in a manuscript submitted to
Specifically, ORI found:
• While at GU, Respondent falsified Western blot images and qPCR experiments examining mechanisms underlying the hypothesis that the DNA repair protein, NTHL-1, regulates wingless signaling in cancer cells. False Western blot images were included in Figures 6A and S7L in the
• While at ESOM, Respondent falsified data on Excel spreadsheets for eight (8) RT-PCR experiments measuring the expression of various genes in leukemia cell lines and included false data in the
Dr. Chetram entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement and voluntarily agreed for a period of three (3) years, beginning on October 19, 2017:
(1) To exclude himself from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility for or involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as “covered transactions” pursuant to HHS' Implementation (2 CFR part 376
(2) To exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.
Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Eye Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public 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/or contract proposals 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 and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of meetings of the AIDS Research Advisory Committee, NIAID.
The meetings will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
November 28, 2017, 11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
Via tele-conference hosted at Inter-American Foundation, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 1200, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Meeting of the Board of Directors, Open to the public.
Karen Vargas, Executive Assistant, (202) 524-8869.
Paul Zimmerman, General Counsel, (202) 683-7118.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meetings.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Council) will meet to select North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) grant proposals for recommendation to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (Commission). The Council will consider Canada, Mexico, and U.S.
The Council and Advisory Group meetings will take place at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 1133 15th Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.
Sarah Mott, Council/Advisory Group Coordinator, by phone at 703-358-1784; by email at
In accordance with the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (Pub. L. 101-233, 103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989, as amended; NAWCA), the State-private-Federal North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Council) meets to consider wetland acquisition, restoration, enhancement, and management projects for recommendation to, and final funding approval by, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. NAWCA provides matching grants to organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. These projects must involve long-term protection, restoration, and/or enhancement of wetlands and associated uplands habitats for the benefit of all wetlands-associated migratory birds. Project proposal due dates, application instructions, and eligibility requirements are available on the NAWCA Web site at
In accordance with Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (Pub. L. 106-247, 114 Stat. 593, July 20, 2000; NMBCA), the Advisory Group will hold its meeting to discuss the strategic direction and management of the NMBCA program and provide advice to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. NMBCA promotes long-term conservation of neotropical migratory birds and their habitats through a competitive grants program by promoting partnerships, encouraging local conservation efforts, and achieving habitat protection in 36 countries. The goals of NMBCA include perpetuating healthy bird populations, providing financial resources for bird conservation, and fostering international cooperation. Because the greatest need is south of the U.S. border, at least 75 percent of NMBCA funding supports projects outside the United States. Project proposal due dates, application instructions, and eligibility requirements are available on the NMBCA Web site at
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions to be considered during the public meetings. If you wish to make information available to the Council or Advisory Group for their consideration prior to the meeting, you must contact the Council/Advisory Group Coordinator by the date in
Individuals or groups requesting to make an oral presentation at the meetings will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 30 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council/Advisory Group Coordinator, by the date specified above in
Summary minutes of the Council and Advisory Group meetings will be maintained by the Council/Advisory Group Coordinator at the address under
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have issued the following permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. We issue these permits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax (703) 358-2281. To locate the
Joyce Russell, (703) 358-2023 (telephone); (703) 358-2281 (fax); or
On the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax (703) 358-2281.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Notice.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) El Centro Field Office, with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as a cooperating agency, intends to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the United States Gypsum Company (USG) Mine Expansion/Modernization Project. The Supplemental EIS will analyze additional alternatives and update technical information in the 2008 USG Mine Expansion/Modernization Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/EIS. The USACE was not involved in the development of the EIR/EIS, but will be involved with the Supplemental EIS, based on USACE's jurisdiction by law and special expertise, pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Scoping is not usually required for preparation of a Supplemental EIS. However, since USACE was not a cooperating agency during scoping of the EIR/EIS, they have requested that public scoping be included for the Supplemental EIS.
This notice announces the beginning of the public scoping process for input into the Supplemental EIS. The goal of the scoping process is to solicit public comments, for the purpose of identifying relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the Supplemental EIS.
Comments for input into the Supplemental EIS may be submitted in writing until January 11, 2018. A public scoping meeting will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local newspaper(s), the BLM Web site, BLM Newsbytes, and BLM social media. All comments received during the scoping period will be considered for input into the Supplemental EIS. In order to be included in the Supplemental EIS, all comments must be received prior to the close of the 45-day scoping period or 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later. Additional opportunities for public participation will be provided upon publication of a Draft Supplemental EIS. Upon completion of the public review and comment period of the Draft Supplemental EIS, a Final Supplemental EIS will be prepared and subsequently published for public review.
You may submit comments on issues related to the Supplemental EIS by any of the following methods: Email:
Susie Greenhalgh, BLM Northern California District Office, 6640 Lockheed Drive, Redding, CA 96002; phone: 530-224-2142; email:
The USG's mine expansion/modernization project (Project) involves both the Plaster City Wallboard Plant (Plant) and Plaster City Quarry (Quarry). The Plant is located on Evan Hewes Highway in Plaster City, CA, approximately 18 miles west of the city of El Centro. The Quarry is located on Split Mountain Road approximately 26 miles northwest of Plaster City. Both sites are located within the BLM's California Desert Conservation Area. Components of the expansion project originally analyzed in the EIR/EIS included water delivery systems to the wallboard plant and quarry, a new electrical transmission line, and maintenance of an existing tram road using narrow gauge rail line between the Plant and Quarry. Certain aspects of the project have already been implemented under the conditions and approvals provided by Imperial County and may not be subject to the jurisdiction of the BLM or the USACE.
The surface disturbance analyzed in the 2006 Draft EIR/EIS and the 2008 Final EIR/EIS included operations on placer mining claims and mill sites on BLM land totaling 407.9 acres. Since then, 304.57 acres of these mining claims were patented, subject to regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior to protect the scenic, scientific, and environmental values of the public lands within the California Desert Conservation Area. Pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.2(c), lands patented with this stipulation must comply with the regulations at 43 CFR 3809.
Consequently, the Supplemental EIS will update land ownership changes since completion of the 2006/2008 environmental documents, but the analysis of the applicable regulations and impacts will not need to be changed because of the change in land ownership.
Additionally, USG submitted two right of way applications for the utility access across approximately 55.7 acres of BLM-managed land. BLM's involvement consists of responding to a plan of operations, the two right of way applications, and any other project needs that may be discovered during the scoping process. USG also submitted a request for a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit to the USACE for expansion of operations into alluvial portions of the quarry. USACE's involvement consists of responding to the Section 404 Permit.
At present, the following preliminary issues have been identified: hydrology and water resources, threatened and endangered species, realty/right-of-ways, mineral resources, and cultural resources. The BLM will identify, analyze, and require mitigation, as appropriate, to address the reasonably foreseeable impacts to resources from the project. The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA process to help fulfill the public involvement process under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed USG Project that the BLM and USACE are evaluating, are invited to participate in the public scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
In December 2001, Imperial County, California, published the Notice of Preparation of the joint EIR/EIS for the USG Expansion/Modernization Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As the lead agency for the project under NEPA, the BLM issued a Notice of Intent to prepare a joint EIR/EIS in the
On March 18, 2008, the Imperial County Board of Supervisors certified the EIR and adopted findings of fact, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring program in compliance with CEQA. The Imperial County Board of Supervisors filed a Notice of Determination on March 19, 2008. On March 14, 2008, the BLM published in the
USG proceeded to conduct quarrying operations within its private land at the Quarry under the conditions and approvals provided by Imperial County and the State of California consistent with stipulations outlined by the County. Under existing conditions, USG holds title to 2,032.2 acres of private land of which 1,118.7 acres are approved by Imperial County for mining. In order to proceed with phased quarry operations consistent with production demands and an approved Mine Reclamation Plan, USG proposes to initiate alluvial quarrying activities in undisturbed portions of its mine plan. Proposed project activities related to alluvial quarrying will require a CWA Section 404 Permit from the USACE. The USACE was not a cooperating agency in the development of the USG Expansion/Modernization Project Final EIR/EIS.
In March 2014, USG submitted a request for a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit to the USACE for expansion of operations into alluvial portions of the quarry, Phase 2 and 2P of the Quarry's mine plan. The USACE determined in its initial evaluation of the application that an EIS-level analysis may be required to evaluate impacts to waters of the U.S., including a CWA Section 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis (pursuant to 40 CFR part 230). The USACE could not adopt the USG Final EIR/EIS, per Federal regulations at 40 CFR 1506.3(c), because the USACE was not a cooperating agency at the time of the development of the EIR/EIS. Furthermore, the BLM did not complete its ESA Section 7 consultation requirements or issue a Record of Decision (ROD) based on the Final EIR/EIS.
40 CFR 1501.7.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before November 4, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by December 12, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before November 4, 2017. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
A request for removal has been made for the following resource:
A request to move has been received for the following resources:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 5) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”), granting a motion to terminate the above-captioned investigation in its entirety based on a withdrawal of the complaint.
Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be 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., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on July 12, 2017, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Rio Brands, LLC of West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 82 FR 32199 (July 12, 2017). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of a claim of U.S. Patent No. RE 39,022. The complaint further alleges that a domestic industry exists. The Commission's notice of investigation named CGI Outdoor, Inc. of Higganum, Connecticut, as respondent. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations did not participate in the investigation.
On October 27, 2017, Complainant filed a motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety under Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1), based on a withdrawal of the complaint. Order No. 5 at 1. Respondent submitted a response but did not oppose the motion to terminate.
On November 6, 2017, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the motion and terminating the investigation in its entirety.
No petitions for review were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On October 5, 2017, Bonney Forge Corporation, Mount Union, Pennsylvania and the United Steel, Paper, and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV and subsidized imports of forged steel fittings from China and LTFV imports of forged steel fittings from Italy and Taiwan. Accordingly, effective October 5, 2017, the Commission, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-589 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1394-1396 (Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on November 20, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4743 (November 2017), entitled
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 20, 2017, under the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of PureCircle USA Inc. of Oak Brook, Illinois and PureCircle Sdn Bhd of Malaysia. A supplement was filed on November 13, 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 glucosylated steviol glycosides, and products containing same by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,420,815 (“the '815 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established 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.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain glucosylated steviol glycosides, and products containing same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-14 of the `815 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established 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 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:
(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 participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-579-580 and 731-TA-1369-1372 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of fine denier polyester staple fiber (“fine denier PSF”) from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan, provided for in subheading 5503.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Imports of this product from China and India have been preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce to be subsidized. Determinations with respect to imports of fine denier PSF alleged to be sold at less than fair value are pending.
November 6, 2017.
Jordan Harriman (202-205-2610), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter 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 (
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3. decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bicomponent fiber with a polyester core and anouter, polyester sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core currently classified under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.”
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 26, 2018.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jean King, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 2600, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia, 22041; telephone: (703) 305-0470. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In accordance with the Section 223 (19 U.S.C. 2273) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271,
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)) must be met, as follows:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(1)) is that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm (or “such firm”) have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied by either (A) the Increased Imports Path, or (B) the Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path/Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path, as follows:
(A)
(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm, have decreased absolutely;
(ii)(I) imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using the services
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; OR
(B)
(i)(I) there has been a shift by such workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of services like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; OR
(II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country articles or services that are like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm;
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(b)) must be met, as follows:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the workers' firm is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)), and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification (as defined in subsection 222(c)(3) and (4) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(c)(3) and (4));
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; OR
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation determined under paragraph (1).
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(e) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(e)) must be met, by following criteria (1), (2), and (3) as follows:
(1) the workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1));
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1)of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2436(b)(1)); OR
(C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(f)(1)) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) is published in the
(3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); OR
(B) not withstanding section 223(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2273(b)), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (Increased Imports Path) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path or Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(e) (firms identified by the International Trade Commission) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for TAA have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the requirements of Trade Act section 222 (a)(1) and (b)(1) (significant worker total/partial separation or threat of total/partial separation), or (e) (firms identified by the International Trade Commission), have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A)(i) (decline in sales or production, or both), or (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country or acquisition of articles or services from a foreign country), (b)(2) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA or downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA), and (e) (International Trade Commission) of section 222 have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A) (increased imports), (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country or acquisition of articles or services from a foreign country), (b)(2) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA or downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA), and (e) (International Trade Commission) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued in cases where the petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the worker group on whose behalf the petition was filed is covered under an existing certification.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, no later than December 7, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than December 7, 2017.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice, request for comments on this collection of information.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This pre-clearance consultation program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. By this notice, IMLS is soliciting comments concerning the annual IMLS National Medals Program is designed to recognize outstanding libraries and museums that have made significant contributions in service to improve the wellbeing of their communities.
A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before January 23, 2018.
IMLS is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology,
Send comments to: Dr. Sandra Webb, Senior Advisor, Office of the Director, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Webb can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4718, Fax: 202-653-4608, or by email at
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the nation's approximately 120,000 libraries and 35,000 museums and related organizations. Our mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advance innovation, lifelong learning, and cultural and civic engagement. Our grant making, policy development, and research help libraries and museums deliver valuable services that make it possible for communities and individuals to thrive. To learn more, visit
The annual IMLS National Medals Program is designed to recognize outstanding libraries and museums that have made significant contributions in service to improve the wellbeing of their communities. IMLS is interested in museum and library programs that build community cohesion and serve as a catalyst for positive community change, including services for veterans and military families, at-risk children and families, the un- and under-employed, and youth confronting barriers to STEM-related employment. Selected institutions demonstrate extraordinary approaches to serving their constituents; they exceed expected levels of community outreach. These organizations have established themselves as community anchor institutions. Recipient institutions are honored at an awards ceremony that is held in Washington, DC.
Dr. Sandra Webb, Senior Advisor, Office of
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Voluntary Reporting of Planned New Reactor Applications.”
Submit comments by January 26, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0180 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0180 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
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. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of exemptions in response to a request from Omaha Public Power District (OPPD or the licensee) that would permit the licensee to reduce its emergency planning (EP) activities at the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1 (Fort Calhoun). The licensee is seeking exemptions that would eliminate the requirements for the licensee to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans, and reduce some of the onsite EP activities, based on the reduced risks at Fort Calhoun, which is permanently shutdown and defueled. However, requirements for certain onsite capabilities to communicate and coordinate with offsite response authorities, in the event of an emergency at Fort Calhoun, would be retained. The NRC staff is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) associated with the proposed exemptions.
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on November 27, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0223 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
James Kim, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4125; email:
Fort Calhoun is a permanently shutdown and defueled nuclear power plant, located in Washington County, Nebraska, which is in the process of decommissioning. The licensee is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40 for operation of Fort Calhoun. Fort Calhoun has been shut down since October 24, 2016, and the final removal of fuel from its reactor vessel was completed on November 13, 2016. By letter dated November 13, 2016, OPPD submitted to the NRC a certification of the permanent cessation of power operations at Fort Calhoun and the permanent removal of fuel from the Fort Calhoun reactor vessel. As a permanently shutdown and defueled facility, and pursuant to section 50.82(a)(2) of title 10 of the
The licensee has requested exemptions for Fort Calhoun from certain EP requirements in 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” The NRC regulations concerning EP do not recognize the reduced risks after a reactor is permanently shut down and defueled. As such, a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor such as Fort Calhoun must continue to maintain the same EP requirements as an operating power reactor under the existing regulatory requirements. To establish a level of EP commensurate with the reduced risks of a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor, OPPD requires exemptions from certain EP regulatory requirements before it can change its emergency plans.
The NRC is considering issuing exemptions from portions of 10 CFR 50.47, “Emergency plans,” and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, “Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,” to OPPD, which would eliminate the requirements for OPPD to maintain offsite radiological emergency plans and reduce some of the onsite EP activities, based on the reduced risks at Fort Calhoun, due to its permanently shutdown and defueled status. Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC has reviewed the requirements in 10 CFR 51.20(b) and 10 CFR 51.22(c) and determined that an EA is the appropriate form of environmental review for the requested action. Based on the results of the EA, which is provided in Section II of this document, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action, and is issuing a FONSI.
The proposed action would exempt OPPD from meeting certain requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50.47 and appendix E to 10 CFR part 50. More specifically, OPPD requested exemptions from: (1) Certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) regarding onsite and offsite emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors; (2) certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) to establish plume exposure and ingestion pathway emergency planning zones for nuclear power reactors; and (3) certain requirements in 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, which establishes the elements that make up the content of a licensee's emergency plan. The proposed action of granting these exemptions would eliminate the requirements for OPPD to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans, as described in 44 CFR part 350, and reduce some of the onsite EP activities at Fort Calhoun, based on the reduced risks at the permanently shutdown and defueled reactor. However, requirements for certain onsite capabilities to communicate and coordinate with offsite response authorities, in the event of an emergency at Fort Calhoun, would be retained. Additionally, if necessary, offsite protective actions could still be implemented using a comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) process. A CEMP in this context, also referred to as an emergency operations plan, is addressed in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101. The CPG 101 is the foundation for State, territorial, Tribal, and local EP in the United States. It promotes a common understanding of the fundamentals of risk-informed planning and decision making, and helps planners at all levels of government in their efforts to develop and maintain viable, all-hazards, all-threats emergency plans. An emergency operations plan is flexible enough for use in all emergencies. It describes how people and property will be protected; details regarding who is responsible for carrying out specific actions; identifies the personnel, equipment, facilities, supplies, and other resources available; and outlines the process by which all actions will be coordinated. A CEMP is often referred to as a synonym for “all-hazards planning.”
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated December 16, 2016, as supplemented by letters dated February 10, April 14, and April 20, 2017, in which OPPD provided responses to the NRC staff's requests for additional information concerning the proposed exemptions.
The proposed action is needed for OPPD to revise Fort Calhoun's Emergency Plan to reflect the permanently shutdown and defueled status of the facility. The EP requirements currently applicable to Fort Calhoun are for an operating power reactor. There are no explicit regulatory provisions distinguishing EP requirements for a power reactor that has been permanently shut down and defueled, from those for an operating power reactor. Therefore, since the 10 CFR part 50 license for Fort Calhoun no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible.
In its exemption request, the licensee identified the remaining possible accidents at Fort Calhoun in its permanently shutdown and defueled condition. The NRC staff evaluated these possible radiological accidents, as memorialized in the Commission Paper (SECY)-17-0080, “Request by the Omaha Public Power District for Exemptions from Certain Emergency Planning Requirements for the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1,” dated August 10, 2017. In SECY-17-0080, the NRC staff stated that it had verified that OPPD's analyses and calculations provided reasonable assurance that if the requested exemptions were granted, then: (1) For a design-basis accident, an offsite radiological release will not exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Protective Action Guides (PAGs) at the exclusion area boundary, as detailed in the Environmental Protection Agency “PAG Manual: Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents,” January 2017; and (2) in the unlikely event of a beyond design-basis accident, resulting in a loss of all spent fuel pool cooling, there is sufficient time to initiate appropriate mitigating actions on site and, if a release is projected to occur, there is sufficient time for offsite agencies to take protective actions using a CEMP to protect the public health and safety. The Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to grant the exemptions, based on this evaluation in its Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) to SECY-17-0080, dated October 25, 2017.
Based on these analyses, the licensee stated that complete application of the EP rule to Fort Calhoun, in its particular circumstances as a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor, would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The licensee also stated that it would incur undue costs in the application of operating plant EP requirements for the maintenance of an emergency response organization in excess of that actually needed to respond to the diminished scope of credible accidents for a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor.
Based on the conclusions reached in SECY-17-0080, the NRC staff concludes that the exemptions, if granted, would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents at Fort Calhoun in its permanently shutdown and defueled condition. There would be no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite. There would be no significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite. There would be no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have any foreseeable impacts to land, air, or water resources, including impacts to biota. In addition, there are no known socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts associated with the proposed action. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered the denial of the proposed action (
The proposed action does not involve the use of any different resources than those considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Fort
The NRC staff did not enter into consultation with any other Federal agency or with the State of Nebraska regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. On October 5, 2017, the Nebraska state representative was notified of this EA and FONSI.
The licensee has proposed exemptions from: (1) Certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) regarding onsite and offsite emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors; (2) certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) to establish plume exposure and ingestion pathway emergency planning zones for nuclear power reactors; and (3) certain requirements in 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, which establishes the elements that make up the content of a licensee's emergency plan. The proposed action of granting these exemptions would eliminate the requirements for the licensee to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans, as described in 44 CFR part 350, and reduce some of the onsite EP activities at Fort Calhoun, based on the reduced risks at the permanently shutdown and defueled reactor. However, requirements for certain onsite capabilities to communicate and coordinate with offsite response authorities following declaration of an emergency at Fort Calhoun will be retained and offsite “all hazards” EP provisions will still exist through State and local government use of a CEMP.
Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC conducted the EA for the proposed action, which is included in Section II of this document, and incorporated by reference in this finding. On the basis of this EA, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has decided not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
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, “Voluntary Reporting of Performance Indicators.”
Submit comments by December 27, 2017.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Brandon F. DeBruhl, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0195), 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-2017-0069 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 comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment 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, “Voluntary Reporting of Performance Indicators.” 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.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 20, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Commission will host the SEC Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation on Thursday, November 30, 2017, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Central Time.
The forum will be held at the AT&T Executive Education and Conference Center on the campus of The University of Texas at Austin, 1900 University Ave., Austin, TX 78705.
This meeting will be open to the public.
The forum will be open to the public and will include remarks by SEC Commissioners and a panel discussion that Commissioners may attend. The panel discussion will explore how capital formation options are working for small businesses, including small businesses in Texas. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its governance documents with respect to changes relating to its director nomination and committee appointment process and its Nominating and Governance Committee.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws and Certificate. Specifically the Exchange proposes to eliminate its Nominating and Governance Committee (“N&G Committee”), as well as amend the process by which (i) directors are elected, (ii) committee appointments are made and (iii) vacancies are filled. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to make other technical, non-substantive changes.
By way of background, Section 4.3 of the Bylaws provides, among other things, that the Exchange N&G Committee shall consist of at least five directors that are majority Non-Industry Directors and are appointed by the Board on the recommendation of the N&G Committee. Section 4.3 of the Bylaws also provides that the N&G Committee shall have the authority to nominate individuals for election as directors of the Corporation and such other duties as prescribed by resolution of the Board.
The Exchange first proposes to eliminate its N&G Committee and amend the process by which Directors are nominated and elected. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide that the sole stockholder of the exchange shall nominate and elect directors for nomination at the annual meeting of the stockholder, except with respect to fair-representation directors (“Representative Directors”) as described below. The Exchange notes that another Exchange similarly does not maintain an exchange-level nominating committee and instead provides that the sole stockholder of the Exchange nominates and elects their non-fair representation Directors.
The N&G Committee is also currently responsible for recommending to the Board of Directors appointments to certain Committees. Specifically, Section 4.2 and Section 6.1 of the Bylaws provides that the members of the Executive Committee and Advisory Board, respectively, be recommended by the N&G Committee for approval by the Board. Pursuant to Section 4.4 of the Bylaws, members of the Regulatory Oversight Committee (“ROC”) are recommended by the Non-Industry Directors on the N&G Committee for approval by the Board.
In light of the elimination of the N&G Committee, the Exchange proposes to eliminate references to the N&G Committee with respect to committee appointments and transfer the N&G's current authority to the Board (or appropriate subcommittee of the Board). Specifically the Exchange proposes that members of the Executive Committee and Advisory Board be appointed by the Board and members of the ROC be appointed by the Board on the recommendation of the Non-Industry Directors of the Board. The Exchange notes that Boards of other Exchanges also have authority to appoint Board Committees.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the process to fill Director vacancies. Currently, Sections 3.4 of the Bylaws provides that in the event any Industry Director or Non-Industry Director fails to maintain the qualifications required for such category of director, his office shall become vacant and the vacancy may be filled by the Board with a person who qualifies for the category in which the vacancy exists. If a director is determined to have requalified, Section 3.4 provides the Board, in its sole discretion, may fill an existing vacancy in the Board or may increase the size of the Board, as necessary, to appoint such director to the Board; provided, however, that the Board shall be under no obligation to return such director to the Board.
Section 3.5 of the Bylaws also provides that a vacancy on the Board may be filled by a vote of majority of the Directors then in office, or by the sole remaining Director, so long as the elected Director qualifies for the position. Additionally, for vacancies of Representative Directors, the Representative Director Nominating Body will recommend an individual to be elected, or provide a list of recommended individuals, and the position shall be filled by the vote of a majority of the Directors then in office. Consistent with the proposal to have the sole stockholder nominate and elect directors to the Board (and to be bound to accept and elect the Representative Director Nominating Body's nominee(s)), the Exchange wishes to provide that the sole stockholder, instead of the Board, will also have the ability to fill the above described Director vacancies.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to change the Exchange's name in the title and signature line in its Certificate from “Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.” to “Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.” The Exchange notes that it recently changed its legal name, but was unable to update the Exchange's name in the title or signature line in its Certificate as the name changes were not effective until the Exchange, as previously named, filed the proposed changes in Delaware. The Exchange had noted in the filing that proposed the name changes that it would later amend the Certificate to reflect the new name in the title and signature line and the Exchange is seeking to do so now. The Exchange also proposes to make clarifying amendments and cite to the applicable provisions of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware in connection with the proposed restatement and amendment.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes eliminating the exchange-level N&G Committee allows the Exchange to eliminate a board committee whose core responsibilities can be adequately handled by its sole stockholder or Board, as applicable. The Exchange believes the elimination of this board committee will streamline, make more efficient, and improve the Exchange's governance structure and allow directors of the Exchange to continue to focus their attention on matters within the purview of the Exchange's Board including its orderly discharge of regulatory duties to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange also notes that it is not statutorily required to maintain a standing nominating committee. Indeed, another Exchange
The Exchange importantly notes that it is not proposing to amend any of the compositional requirements currently set forth in the Bylaws and that notwithstanding the proposed changes, existing compositional requirements of the Exchange will still be required to be satisfied, including the provision relating to the fair representation of members. While the delegation of the authority relating to the (i) nomination and election of directors, (ii) nominating body for Representative Directors, (iii) filling of Director vacancies and (iv) appointment of committees is being modified, the substantive practices of the Exchange will remain the same. For example, the sole stockholder will be bound to nominate and elect the Representative Directors nominees recommended by the Representative Director Nominating Body or, in the event of a petition candidate, the Representative Director nominees who receive the most votes pursuant to a Run-off Election.
Lastly, the Exchange believes the clarifying changes to the Exchange's Certificate, including updating the Exchange's name in the title and signature line, allows the Exchange to comply with Delaware law and reduce potential confusion. The alleviation of confusion removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest of market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes do not affect the meaning, administration, or enforcement of any rules of the Exchange or the rights, obligations, or privileges of Exchange members or their associated persons is any way.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change relates to the corporate governance of the Exchange and not the operations of the Exchange. This is not a competitive filing and, therefore, imposes no burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to remove Directed Order
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.
Last year the Exchange filed to delay the implementation of the Directed Order functionality in conjunction with a replatform to INET.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange is not offering this functionality today and believes there is no interest among Members for this functionality.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its governance documents with respect to changes relating to its director nomination and committee appointment process, its Nominating and Governance Committee and its Regulatory Oversight and Compliance Committee.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws and Certificate. Specifically the Exchange proposes to eliminate its Nominating and Governance Committee (“N&G Committee”), as well as amend the process by which (i) directors are elected, (ii) committee appointments are made and (iii) vacancies are filled. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the name of the Regulatory Oversight and Compliance Committee (“ROCC”) and make other technical, non-substantive changes.
By way of background, Section 4.3 of the Bylaws provides, among other things, that the Exchange N&G Committee shall consist of at least five directors that are majority Non-Industry Directors and are appointed by the Board on the recommendation of the N&G Committee. Section 4.3 of the Bylaws also provides that the N&G Committee shall have the authority to nominate individuals for election as directors of the Corporation and such other duties as prescribed by resolution of the Board.
The Exchange first proposes to eliminate its N&G Committee and amend the process by which Directors are nominated and elected. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide that the sole stockholder of the exchange shall nominate and elect directors for nomination at the annual meeting of the stockholder, except with respect to fair-representation directors (“Representative Directors”) as described below. The Exchange notes that another Exchange similarly does not maintain an exchange-level nominating committee and instead provides that the sole stockholder of the Exchange nominates and elects their non-fair representation Directors.
The N&G Committee is also currently responsible for recommending to the Board of Directors appointments to certain Committees. Specifically, Section 4.2 and Section 6.1 of the Bylaws provides that the members of the Executive Committee and Advisory Board, respectively, be recommended by the N&G Committee for approval by the Board. Pursuant to Section 4.4 of the Bylaws, members of the ROCC are recommended by the Non-Industry Directors on the N&G Committee for approval by the Board.
In light of the elimination of the N&G Committee, the Exchange proposes to eliminate references to the N&G Committee with respect to committee appointments and transfer the N&G's current authority to the Board (or appropriate subcommittee of the Board). Specifically the Exchange proposes that members of the Executive Committee and Advisory Board be appointed by the Board and members of the ROCC be appointed by the Board on the recommendation of the Non-Industry Directors of the Board. The Exchange notes that Boards of other Exchanges also have authority to appoint Board Committees.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the process to fill Director vacancies. Currently, Sections 3.4 of the Bylaws provides that in the event any Industry Director or Non-Industry Director fails to maintain the qualifications required for such category of director, his office shall become vacant and the vacancy may be filled by the Board with a person who qualifies for the category in which the vacancy exists. If a director is determined to have requalified, Section 3.4 provides the Board, in its sole discretion, may fill an existing vacancy in the Board or may increase the size of the Board, as necessary, to appoint such director to the Board; provided, however, that the Board shall be under no obligation to return such director to the Board.
Section 3.5 of the Bylaws also provides that a vacancy on the Board may be filled by a vote of majority of the Directors then in office, or by the sole remaining Director, so long as the elected Director qualifies for the position. Additionally, for vacancies of Representative Directors, the Representative Director Nominating Body will recommend an individual to be elected, or provide a list of recommended individuals, and the position shall be filled by the vote of a majority of the Directors then in office. Consistent with the proposal to have the sole stockholder nominate and elect directors to the Board (and to be bound to accept and elect the Representative Director Nominating Body's nominee(s)), the Exchange wishes to provide that the sole stockholder, instead of the Board, will also have the ability to fill the above described Director vacancies.
The Exchange proposes to change the name of the “Regulatory Oversight and Compliance Committee” (“ROCC”) to the “Regulatory Oversight Committee” (“ROC”). The Exchange notes that there may be overlap and duplication of reports from the Compliance Department to the parent company Audit Committee and the Exchange ROCC. To address this issue, going forward, the Cboe Global Markets Audit Committee will be the “go to” Board committee for reports from the Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) related to compliance matters. As such, the Exchange proposes to drop the reference of “Compliance” in “ROCC” in the Bylaws. The Exchange notes that the reporting function of the CCO to the ROC will be permissive. The Exchange also notes that the regulatory oversight committees of its affiliated exchanges does not use the term “Compliance” in their Committees' name.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to change the Exchange's name in the title and signature line in its Certificate from “C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated” to Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.” The Exchange notes that it recently changed its legal name, but was unable to update the Exchange's name in the title or signature line in its Certificate as the name changes were not effective until the Exchange, as previously named, filed the proposed changes in Delaware. The Exchange had noted in the filing that proposed the name changes that it would later amend the Certificate to reflect the new name in the title and signature line and the Exchange is seeking to do so now. Pursuant to Delaware law, the Exchange is also adding a reference to its original name in the introductory paragraph of the Certificate.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes eliminating the exchange-level N&G Committee allows the Exchange to eliminate a board committee whose core responsibilities can be adequately handled by its sole stockholder or Board, as applicable. The Exchange believes the elimination of this board committee will streamline, make more efficient, and improve the Exchange's governance structure and allow directors of the Exchange to continue to focus their attention on matters within the purview of the Exchange's board including its orderly discharge of regulatory duties to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange also notes that it is not statutorily required to maintain a standing nominating committee. Indeed, another Exchange similarly does not do so and instead provides that its sole stockholder nominates and elects its non-fair representation directors.
The Exchange importantly notes that it is not proposing to amend any of the compositional requirements currently set forth in the Bylaws and that notwithstanding the proposed changes, existing compositional requirements of the Exchange will still be required to be satisfied, including the provision relating to the fair representation of members. While the delegation of the authority relating to the (i) nomination and election of directors, (ii) nominating body for Representative Directors, (iii) filling of Director vacancies and (iv) appointment of committees is being modified, the substantive practices of the Exchange will remain the same. For example, the sole stockholder will be bound to nominate and elect the Representative Directors nominees recommended by the Representative Director Nominating Body or, in the event of a petition candidate, the Representative Director nominees who receive the most votes pursuant to a Run-off Election.
The Exchange believes eliminating the reference to “Compliance” in the ROCC's name is appropriate and will reduce potential confusion given that the CCO is no longer required to (but may) report to the ROCC. The Exchange notes that the new name is also consistent with the name of the regulatory oversight committee of its affiliated exchanges.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes do not affect the meaning, administration, or enforcement of any rules of the Exchange or the rights, obligations, or privileges of Exchange members or their associated persons is any way.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change relates to the corporate governance of the Exchange and not the operations of the Exchange. This is not a competitive filing and, therefore, imposes no burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its governance documents with respect to changes relating to its director nomination and committee appointment process and its Nominating and Governance Committee.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws and Certificate. Specifically the Exchange proposes to eliminate its Nominating and Governance Committee (“N&G Committee”), as well as amend the process by which (i) directors are elected, (ii) committee appointments are made and (iii) vacancies are filled. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to make other technical, non-substantive changes.
By way of background, Section 4.3 of the Bylaws provides, among other things, that the Exchange N&G Committee shall consist of at least five directors that are majority Non-Industry Directors and are appointed by the Board on the recommendation of the N&G Committee. Section 4.3 of the Bylaws also provides that the N&G Committee shall have the authority to nominate individuals for election as directors of the Corporation and such other duties as prescribed by resolution of the Board.
The Exchange first proposes to eliminate its N&G Committee and amend the process by which Directors are nominated and elected. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide that the sole stockholder of the exchange shall nominate and elect directors for nomination at the annual meeting of the stockholder, except with respect to fair-representation directors (“Representative Directors”) as described below. The Exchange notes that another Exchange similarly does not maintain an exchange-level nominating committee and instead provides that the sole stockholder of the Exchange nominates and elects their non-fair representation Directors.
The N&G Committee is also currently responsible for recommending to the Board of Directors appointments to certain Committees. Specifically, Section 4.2 and Section 6.1 of the Bylaws provides that the members of the Executive Committee and Advisory Board, respectively, be recommended by the N&G Committee for approval by the Board. Pursuant to Section 4.4 of the Bylaws, members of the Regulatory Oversight Committee (“ROC”) are recommended by the Non-Industry Directors on the N&G Committee for approval by the Board.
In light of the elimination of the N&G Committee, the Exchange proposes to eliminate references to the N&G Committee with respect to committee appointments and transfer the N&G's current authority to the Board (or appropriate subcommittee of the Board). Specifically the Exchange proposes that members of the Executive Committee and Advisory Board be appointed by the Board and members of the ROC be appointed by the Board on the recommendation of the Non-Industry Directors of the Board. The Exchange notes that Boards of other Exchanges also have authority to appoint Board Committees.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the process to fill Director vacancies. Currently, Sections 3.4 of the Bylaws provides that in the event any Industry Director or Non-Industry Director fails to maintain the qualifications required for such category of director, his office shall become vacant and the vacancy may be filled by the Board with a person who qualifies for the category in which the vacancy exists. If a director is determined to have requalified, Section 3.4 provides the Board, in its sole discretion, may fill an existing vacancy in the Board or may increase the size of the Board, as necessary, to appoint such director to the Board; provided, however, that the Board shall be under no obligation to return such director to the Board.
Section 3.5 of the Bylaws also provides that a vacancy on the Board may be filled by a vote of majority of the Directors then in office, or by the sole remaining Director, so long as the elected Director qualifies for the position. Additionally, for vacancies of Representative Directors, the Representative Director Nominating Body will recommend an individual to be elected, or provide a list of recommended individuals, and the position shall be filled by the vote of a majority of the Directors then in office. Consistent with the proposal to have the sole stockholder nominate and elect directors to the Board (and to be bound to accept and elect the Representative Director Nominating Body's nominee(s)), the Exchange wishes to provide that the sole stockholder, instead of the Board, will also have the ability to fill the above described Director vacancies.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to change the Exchange's name in the title and signature line in its Certificate from “Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.” to “Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.” The Exchange notes that it recently changed its legal name, but was unable to update the Exchange's name in the title or signature line in its Certificate as the name changes were not effective until the Exchange, as previously named, filed the proposed changes in Delaware. The Exchange had noted in the filing that proposed the name changes that it would later amend the Certificate to reflect the new name in the title and signature line and the Exchange is seeking to do so now. The Exchange also proposes to make clarifying amendments and cite to the applicable provisions of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware in connection with the proposed restatement and amendment.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes eliminating the exchange-level N&G Committee allows the Exchange to eliminate a board committee whose core responsibilities can be adequately handled by its sole stockholder or Board, as applicable. The Exchange believes the elimination of this board committee will streamline, make more efficient, and improve the Exchange's governance structure and allow directors of the Exchange to continue to focus their attention on matters within the purview of the Exchange's Board including its orderly discharge of regulatory duties to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange also notes that it is not statutorily required to maintain a standing nominating committee. Indeed, another Exchange similarly does not do so and instead provides that its sole stockholder nominates and elects its non-fair representation directors.
The Exchange importantly notes that it is not proposing to amend any of the compositional requirements currently set forth in the Bylaws and that notwithstanding the proposed changes, existing compositional requirements of the Exchange will still be required to be satisfied, including the provision relating to the fair representation of members. While the delegation of the authority relating to the (i) nomination and election of directors, (ii) nominating body for Representative Directors, (iii) filling of Director vacancies and (iv) appointment of committees is being modified, the substantive practices of the Exchange will remain the same. For example, the sole stockholder will be bound to nominate and elect the Representative Directors nominees recommended by the Representative Director Nominating Body or, in the event of a petition candidate, the Representative Director nominees who receive the most votes pursuant to a Run-off Election.
Lastly, the Exchange believes the clarifying changes to the Exchange's Certificate, including updating the Exchange's name in the title and signature line, allows the Exchange to comply with Delaware law and reduce potential confusion. The alleviation of confusion removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest of market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes do not affect the meaning, administration, or enforcement of any rules of the Exchange or the rights, obligations, or privileges of Exchange members or their associated persons is any way.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change relates to the corporate governance of the Exchange and not the operations of the Exchange. This is not a competitive filing and, therefore, imposes no burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 713 to delete Supplementary Material .02, which no longer is applicable.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange previously filed a rule change to amend the All-Or-None Order so that it may only be entered into the trading system with a time-in-force designation of Immediate-Or-Cancel.
The Exchange proposes at this time to remove Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 713 as unnecessary as All-Or-None Orders do not rest on the Order Book.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
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. This proposal seeks to delete rule text which is unnecessary and may lead to confusion. All-Or-None Orders do not rest on the order book and do not allocate differently than any other incoming order.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its governance documents with respect to changes relating to its director nomination and committee appointment process and its Nominating and Governance Committee.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws and Certificate. Specifically the Exchange proposes to eliminate its Nominating and Governance Committee (“N&G Committee”), as well as amend the process by which (i) directors are elected, (ii) committee appointments are made and (iii) vacancies are filled. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to make other technical, non-substantive changes.
By way of background, Section 4.3 of the Bylaws provides, among other things, that the Exchange N&G Committee shall consist of at least five directors that are majority Non-Industry Directors and are appointed by the Board on the recommendation of the N&G Committee. Section 4.3 of the Bylaws also provides that the N&G Committee shall have the authority to nominate individuals for election as directors of the Corporation and such other duties as prescribed by resolution of the Board.
The Exchange first proposes to eliminate its N&G Committee and amend the process by which Directors are nominated and elected. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide that the sole stockholder of the exchange shall nominate and elect directors for nomination at the annual meeting of the stockholder, except with respect to fair-representation directors (“Representative Directors”) as described below. The Exchange notes that another Exchange similarly does not maintain an exchange-level nominating committee and instead provides that the sole stockholder of the Exchange nominates and elects their non-fair representation Directors.
The N&G Committee is also currently responsible for recommending to the Board of Directors appointments to certain Committees. Specifically, Section 4.2 and Section 6.1 of the Bylaws provides that the members of the Executive Committee and Advisory Board, respectively, be recommended by the N&G Committee for approval by the Board. Pursuant to Section 4.4 of the Bylaws, members of the Regulatory Oversight Committee (“ROC”) are recommended by the Non-Industry Directors on the N&G Committee for approval by the Board.
In light of the elimination of the N&G Committee, the Exchange proposes to eliminate references to the N&G Committee with respect to committee appointments and transfer the N&G's current authority to the Board (or appropriate subcommittee of the Board). Specifically the Exchange proposes that members of the Executive Committee and Advisory Board be appointed by the Board and members of the ROC be appointed by the Board on the recommendation of the Non-Industry Directors of the Board. The Exchange notes that Boards of other Exchanges also have authority to appoint Board Committees.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the process to fill Director vacancies. Currently, Sections 3.4 of the Bylaws provides that in the event any Industry Director or Non-Industry Director fails to maintain the qualifications required for such category of director, his office shall become vacant and the vacancy may be filled by the Board with a person who qualifies for the category in which the vacancy exists. If a director is determined to have requalified, Section 3.4 provides the Board, in its sole discretion, may fill an existing vacancy in the Board or may increase the size of the Board, as necessary, to appoint such director to the Board; provided, however, that the Board shall be under no obligation to return such director to the Board.
Section 3.5 of the Bylaws also provides that a vacancy on the Board may be filled by a vote of majority of the Directors then in office, or by the sole remaining Director, so long as the elected Director qualifies for the position. Additionally, for vacancies of Representative Directors, the Representative Director Nominating Body will recommend an individual to be elected, or provide a list of recommended individuals, and the position shall be filled by the vote of a majority of the Directors then in office. Consistent with the proposal to have the sole stockholder nominate and elect directors to the Board (and to be bound to accept and elect the Representative Director Nominating Body's nominee(s)), the Exchange wishes to provide that the sole stockholder, instead of the Board, will also have the ability to fill the above described Director vacancies.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to change the Exchange's name in the title and signature line in its Certificate from “Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.” to “Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.” The Exchange notes that it recently changed its legal name, but was unable to update the Exchange's name in the title or signature line in its Certificate as the name changes were not effective until the Exchange, as previously named, filed the proposed changes in Delaware. The Exchange had noted in the filing that proposed the name changes that it would later amend the Certificate to reflect the new name in the title and signature line and the Exchange is seeking to do so now. The Exchange also proposes to make clarifying amendments and cite to the applicable provisions of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware in connection with the proposed restatement and amendment.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations
The Exchange believes eliminating the exchange-level N&G Committee allows the Exchange to eliminate a board committee whose core responsibilities can be adequately handled by its sole stockholder or Board, as applicable. The Exchange believes the elimination of this board committee will streamline, make more efficient, and improve the Exchange's governance structure and allow directors of the Exchange to continue to focus their attention on matters within the purview of the Exchange's Board including its orderly discharge of regulatory duties to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange also notes that it is not statutorily required to maintain a standing nominating committee. Indeed, another Exchange similarly does not do so and instead provides that its sole stockholder nominates and elects its non-fair representation directors.
The Exchange importantly notes that it is not proposing to amend any of the compositional requirements currently set forth in the Bylaws and that notwithstanding the proposed changes, existing compositional requirements of the Exchange will still be required to be satisfied, including the provision relating to the fair representation of members. While the delegation of the authority relating to the (i) nomination and election of directors, (ii) nominating body for Representative Directors, (iii) filling of Director vacancies and (iv) appointment of committees is being modified, the substantive practices of the Exchange will remain the same. For example, the sole stockholder will be bound to nominate and elect the Representative Directors nominees recommended by the Representative Director Nominating Body or, in the event of a petition candidate, the Representative Director nominees who receive the most votes pursuant to a Run-off Election.
Lastly, the Exchange believes the clarifying changes to the Exchange's Certificate, including updating the Exchange's name in the title and signature line, allows the Exchange to comply with Delaware law and reduce potential confusion. The alleviation of confusion removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest of market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes do not affect the meaning, administration, or enforcement of any rules of the Exchange or the rights, obligations, or privileges of Exchange members or their associated persons is any way.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change relates to the corporate governance of the Exchange and not the operations of the Exchange. This is not a competitive filing and, therefore, imposes no burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form F-10 (17 CFR 239.40) is a registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its governance documents with respect to changes relating to its director nomination and committee appointment process and its Nominating and Governance Committee.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these
The Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws and Certificate. Specifically the Exchange proposes to eliminate its Nominating and Governance Committee (“N&G Committee”), as well as amend the process by which (i) directors are elected, (ii) committee appointments are made and (iii) vacancies are filled. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to make other technical, non-substantive changes.
By way of background, Section 4.3 of the Bylaws provides, among other things, that the Exchange N&G Committee shall consist of at least five directors that are majority Non-Industry Directors and are appointed by the Board on the recommendation of the N&G Committee. Section 4.3 of the Bylaws also provides that the N&G Committee shall have the authority to nominate individuals for election as directors of the Corporation and such other duties as prescribed by resolution of the Board.
The Exchange first proposes to eliminate its N&G Committee and amend the process by which Directors are nominated and elected. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide that the sole stockholder of the exchange shall nominate and elect directors for nomination at the annual meeting of the stockholder, except with respect to fair-representation directors (“Representative Directors”) as described below. The Exchange notes that another Exchange similarly does not maintain an exchange-level nominating committee and instead provides that the sole stockholder of the Exchange nominates and elects their non-fair representation Directors.
The N&G Committee is also currently responsible for recommending to the Board of Directors appointments to certain Committees. Specifically, Section 4.2 and Section 6.1 of the Bylaws provides that the members of the Executive Committee and Advisory Board, respectively, be recommended by the N&G Committee for approval by the Board. Pursuant to Section 4.4 of the Bylaws, members of the Regulatory Oversight Committee (“ROC”) are recommended by the Non-Industry Directors on the N&G Committee for approval by the Board.
In light of the elimination of the N&G Committee, the Exchange proposes to eliminate references to the N&G Committee with respect to committee appointments and transfer the N&G's current authority to the Board (or appropriate subcommittee of the Board). Specifically the Exchange proposes that members of the Executive Committee and Advisory Board be appointed by the Board and members of the ROC be appointed by the Board on the recommendation of the Non-Industry Directors of the Board. The Exchange notes that Boards of other Exchanges also have authority to appoint Board Committees.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the process to fill Director vacancies. Currently, Sections 3.4 of the Bylaws provides that in the event any Industry Director or Non-Industry Director fails to maintain the qualifications required for such category of director, his office shall become vacant and the vacancy may be filled by the Board with a person who qualifies for the category in which the vacancy exists. If a director is determined to have requalified, Section 3.4 provides the Board, in its sole discretion, may fill an existing vacancy in the Board or may increase the size of the Board, as necessary, to appoint such director to the Board; provided, however, that the Board shall be under no obligation to return such director to the Board.
Section 3.5 of the Bylaws also provides that a vacancy on the Board
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to change the Exchange's name in the title and signature line in its Certificate from “Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.” to “Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.” The Exchange notes that it recently changed its legal name, but was unable to update the Exchange's name in the title or signature line in its Certificate as the name changes were not effective until the Exchange, as previously named, filed the proposed changes in Delaware. The Exchange had noted in the filing that proposed the name changes that it would later amend the Certificate to reflect the new name in the title and signature line and the Exchange is seeking to do so now. The Exchange also proposes to make clarifying amendments and cite to the applicable provisions of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware in connection with the proposed restatement and amendment.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes eliminating the exchange-level N&G Committee allows the Exchange to eliminate a board committee whose core responsibilities can be adequately handled by its sole stockholder or Board, as applicable. The Exchange believes the elimination of this board committee will streamline, make more efficient, and improve the Exchange's governance structure and allow directors of the Exchange to continue to focus their attention on matters within the purview of the Exchange's Board including its orderly discharge of regulatory duties to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange also notes that it is not statutorily required to maintain a standing nominating committee. Indeed, another Exchange similarly does not do so and instead provides that its sole stockholder nominates and elects its non-fair representation directors.
The Exchange importantly notes that it is not proposing to amend any of the compositional requirements currently set forth in the Bylaws and that notwithstanding the proposed changes, existing compositional requirements of the Exchange will still be required to be satisfied, including the provision relating to the fair representation of members. While the delegation of the authority relating to the (i) nomination and election of directors, (ii) nominating body for Representative Directors, (iii) filling of Director vacancies and (iv) appointment of committees is being modified, the substantive practices of the Exchange will remain the same. For example, the sole stockholder will be bound to nominate and elect the Representative Directors nominees recommended by the Representative Director Nominating Body or, in the event of a petition candidate, the Representative Director nominees who receive the most votes pursuant to a Run-off Election.
Lastly, the Exchange believes the clarifying changes to the Exchange's Certificate, including updating the Exchange's name in the title and signature line, allows the Exchange to comply with Delaware law and reduce potential confusion. The alleviation of confusion removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest of market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes do not affect the meaning, administration, or enforcement of any rules of the Exchange or the rights, obligations, or privileges of Exchange members or their associated persons in any way.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change relates to the corporate governance of the Exchange and not the operations of the Exchange. This is not a competitive filing and, therefore, imposes no burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 713 to delete Supplementary Material .02, which no longer is applicable.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange previously filed a rule change to amend the All-Or-None Order so that it may only be entered into the trading system with a time-in-force designation of Immediate-Or-Cancel.
The Exchange proposes at this time to remove Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 713 as unnecessary as All-Or-None Orders do not rest on the Order Book.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
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. This proposal seeks to delete rule text which is unnecessary and may lead to confusion. All-Or-None Orders do not rest on the order book and do not allocate differently than any other incoming order.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 713 to delete Supplementary Material .02, which no longer is applicable.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange previously filed a rule change to amend the All-Or-None Order so that it may only be entered into the trading system with a time-in-force designation of Immediate-Or-Cancel.
The Exchange proposes at this time to remove Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 713 as unnecessary as All-Or-None Orders do not rest on the Order Book.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
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. This proposal seeks to delete rule text which is unnecessary and may lead to confusion. All-Or-None Orders do not rest on the order book and do not allocate differently than any other incoming order.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its governance documents and rules with respect to changes relating to its director nomination and committee appointment process, its Nominating and Governance Committee and its Regulatory Oversight and Compliance Committee.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws, Certificate and Rules. Specifically the Exchange proposes to eliminate its Nominating and Governance Committee (“N&G Committee”), as well as amend the process by which (i) directors are elected, (ii) committee appointments are made and (iii) vacancies are filled. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the name of the Regulatory Oversight and Compliance Committee (“ROCC”) and make other technical, non-substantive changes.
By way of background, Section 4.3 of the Bylaws provides, among other things, that the Exchange N&G Committee shall consist of at least five directors that are majority Non-Industry Directors and are appointed by the Board on the recommendation of the N&G Committee. Section 4.3 of the Bylaws also provides that the N&G Committee shall have the authority to nominate individuals for election as directors of the Corporation and such other duties as prescribed by resolution of the Board.
The Exchange first proposes to eliminate its N&G Committee and amend the process by which Directors are nominated and elected. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide that the sole stockholder of the exchange shall nominate and elect directors for nomination at the annual meeting of the stockholder, except with respect to fair-representation directors (“Representative Directors”) as described below. The Exchange notes that another Exchange similarly does not maintain an exchange-level nominating committee and instead provides that the sole stockholder of the Exchange nominates and elects their non-fair representation Directors.
The N&G Committee is also currently responsible for recommending to the Board of Directors appointments to certain Committees. Specifically, Section 4.2 and Section 6.1 of the Bylaws provides that the members of the Executive Committee and Advisory Board, respectively, be recommended by the N&G Committee for approval by the Board. Pursuant to Section 4.4 of the Bylaws, members of the ROCC are recommended by the Non-Industry Directors on the N&G Committee for approval by the Board. Lastly, Exchange Rule 2.1 provides that the N&G Committee, with the approval of the Board, appoints the Chairman, Vice Chairman (if any) and members of the Business Conduct Committee (“BCC”) and fills vacancies on the BCC.
In light of the elimination of the N&G Committee, the Exchange proposes to eliminate references to the N&G Committee with respect to committee appointments and transfer the N&G's current authority to the Board (or appropriate subcommittee of the Board). Specifically the Exchange proposes that members of the Executive Committee and Advisory Board be appointed by the Board and members of the ROCC be appointed by the Board on the recommendation of the Non-Industry Directors of the Board. Additionally, the Exchange proposes that the Board appoint the Chairman, Vice Chairman (if any) and members to the BCC and fills vacancies on the BCC. The Exchange notes that Boards of other Exchanges also have authority to appoint Board and non-Board Committees.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the process to fill Director vacancies. Currently, Sections 3.4 of the Bylaws provides that in the event any Industry Director or Non-Industry Director fails to maintain the qualifications required for such category of director, his office shall become vacant and the vacancy may be filled by the Board with a person who qualifies for the category in which the vacancy exists. If a director is determined to have requalified, Section 3.4 provides the Board, in its sole discretion, may fill an existing vacancy in the Board or may increase the size of the Board, as necessary, to appoint such director to the Board; provided, however, that the Board shall be under no obligation to return such director to the Board.
Section 3.5 of the Bylaws also provides that a vacancy on the Board may be filled by a vote of majority of the Directors then in office, or by the sole remaining Director, so long as the elected Director qualifies for the position. Additionally, for vacancies of Representative Directors, the Representative Director Nominating Body will recommend an individual to be elected, or provide a list of recommended individuals, and the position shall be filled by the vote of a majority of the Directors then in office. Consistent with the proposal to have the sole stockholder nominate and elect directors to the Board (and to be bound to accept and elect the Representative Director Nominating Body's nominee(s)), the Exchange wishes to provide that the sole stockholder, instead of the Board, will also have the ability to fill the above described Director vacancies.
The Exchange proposes to change the name of the “Regulatory Oversight and Compliance Committee” (“ROCC”) to the “Regulatory Oversight Committee” (“ROC”). The Exchange notes that there may be overlap and duplication of reports from the Compliance Department to the parent company Audit Committee and the Exchange ROCC. To address this issue, going forward, the Cboe Global Markets Audit Committee will be the “go to” Board committee for reports from the Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) related to compliance matters. As such, the Exchange proposes to drop the reference of “Compliance” in “ROCC” in the Bylaws and Exchange Rule 17.10. The Exchange notes that the reporting function of the CCO to the ROC will be
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to change the Exchange's name in the title and signature line in its Certificate from “Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated” to “Cboe Exchange, Inc.” The Exchange notes that it recently changed its legal name, but was unable to update the Exchange's name in the title or signature line in its Certificate as the name changes were not effective until the Exchange, as previously named, filed the proposed changes in Delaware. The Exchange had noted in the filing that proposed the name changes that it would later amend the Certificate to reflect the new name in the title and signature line and the Exchange is seeking to do so now. Pursuant to Delaware law, the Exchange is also adding a reference to its original name in the introductory paragraph of the Certificate.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes eliminating the exchange-level N&G Committee allows the Exchange to eliminate a board committee whose core responsibilities can be adequately handled by its sole stockholder or Board, as applicable. The Exchange believes the elimination of this board committee will streamline, make more efficient, and improve the Exchange's governance structure and allow directors of the Exchange to continue to focus their attention on matters within the purview of the Exchange's board including its orderly discharge of regulatory duties to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange also notes that it is not statutorily required to maintain a standing nominating committee. Indeed, another Exchange similarly does not do so and instead provides that its sole stockholder nominates and elects its non-fair representation directors.
The Exchange importantly notes that it is not proposing to amend any of the compositional requirements currently set forth in the Bylaws and that notwithstanding the proposed changes, existing compositional requirements of the Exchange will still be required to be satisfied, including the provision relating to the fair representation of members. While the delegation of the authority relating to the (i) nomination and election of directors, (ii) nominating body for Representative Directors, (iii) filling of Director vacancies and (iv) appointment of committees is being modified, the substantive practices of the Exchange will remain the same. For example, the sole stockholder will be bound to nominate and elect the Representative Directors nominees recommended by the Representative Director Nominating Body or, in the event of a petition candidate, the Representative Director nominees who receive the most votes pursuant to a Run-off Election.
The Exchange believes eliminating the reference to “Compliance” in the ROCC's name is appropriate and will reduce potential confusion given that the CCO is no longer required to (but may) report to the ROCC. The Exchange notes that the new name is also consistent with the name of the regulatory oversight committee of its affiliated exchanges.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes do not affect the meaning, administration, or enforcement of any rules of the Exchange or the rights, obligations, or privileges of Exchange members or their associated persons is any way.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change relates to the corporate governance of the Exchange and not the operations of the Exchange. This is not a competitive filing and, therefore, imposes no burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 236 (17 CFR 230.236) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
12:00 p.m. on Friday, December 1, 2017.
Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Adjudicatory matter; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On August 10, 2017, the Commission approved a proposed rule change by the Exchange to adopt rules governing auctions, including dissemination of auction-related market data, for securities listed on the Exchange pursuant to Chapter 14 of the IEX Rule Book.
The Exchange proposes to apply the following new Fee Codes:
As proposed, non-displayed orders on the Continuous Book
The Exchange believes that the proposed Auction Match Fee for non-displayed orders on the Continuous Book and all orders on the Auction Book that are executed in an IEX Auction are designed to incentivize participation in IEX Auctions by providing a cost-effective execution mechanism that offers Members an opportunity to receive executions at the official opening, re-opening, or closing price of an IEX-listed security. The Exchange believes the proposed fees enhance the price discovery process by incentivizing Members to enter interest in IEX-listed securities into IEX Auctions, rather than investing resources into developing and maintaining their own off-exchange internalization mechanisms, or utilizing the internalization mechanisms of competing brokers and alternative trading systems, and entering only the balance to participate in an IEX Auction.
Moreover, orders that were displayed on the Continuous Book during the Pre-Market Session
The Exchange notes that the Internalization Fee, Displayed Match Fee for non-displayed orders that remove displayed liquidity,
The following table is designed to illustrate the various Fee Codes and execution fees that will be applied to orders that may be executed in an IEX Auction:
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
IEX believes that its proposed pricing for orders executed in an IEX Auction is reasonable and equitable because, as discussed above, the proposed fees are designed to incentivize participation in IEX Auctions by providing a cost-effective execution mechanism that offers Members an opportunity to receive executions at the official opening, re-opening, or closing price of an IEX-listed security. The Exchange believes the proposed fees may also incentivize Members to enter more interest into IEX Auctions, rather than investing resources into developing and maintaining their own off-exchange internalization mechanisms, or utilizing the internalization mechanisms of competing brokers and alternative trading systems. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. However, in the case of auctions, the primary listing market receives the majority of order flow seeking execution at the official opening, re-opening, and closing prices of its listed securities, because such price is generally established by its auction processes. As a result, the Exchange believes that, to date, the Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) and the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) charge auction fees that are considerably higher than those charged during continuous trading, when accounting for the fact that fees for executions in the auction processes are assessed on both sides of each transaction, and a large portion of the fees collected for removing liquidity during continuous trading are largely earmarked to pay rebates to liquidity providers.
As discussed above, IEX also believes that it is appropriate, reasonable, and consistent with the Act not to charge a fee for an order executed in an IEX Auction that was displayed on the Continuous Book prior to the Opening or Closing Auction. As with the existing fee structure for the execution of transactions including displayed liquidity, this fee structure is designed to incentivize Members to send IEX aggressively priced displayable orders, thereby contributing to price discovery, consistent with the overall goal of enhancing market quality. IEX believes that, as with the existing Displayed Match Fee, not charging a fee for the execution of a previously displayed order is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to facilitate the entry of, and enhance execution opportunities for, displayable orders, thereby further incentivizing entry of displayed orders.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the proposed fees are nondiscriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Members, and all Members have an equal opportunity to submit any type of Auction Eligible Order,
Additionally, the Exchange believes that its proposed Fee Codes for orders executed in an IEX Auction, which will be provided on execution reports, will provide transparency and predictability to Members as to the applicable transaction fees, because Members can determine which Fee Code is applicable to the execution of a particular order in an IEX Auction.
As discussed above, the Exchange does not believe that it is appropriate to provide the Internalization Fee, or the Displayed Match Fee to non-displayed orders that execute in an IEX Auction, because IEX Auctions are an aggregated match process where only the cumulative volume to buy and sell at various prices is considered, and thus there is no basis to distinguish between liquidity providers and liquidity removers. Similarly, the Exchange does not believe that the exception to the Non-Displayed Match Fee for displayable orders that take resting interest upon entry is applicable in the context of an IEX Auction, since such orders are not able to remove resting interest on entry in an IEX Auction, because they are either queued on the Auction Book and not displayed, or resting displayed on the Continuous Book.
In conclusion, the Exchange also submits that its proposed fee structure satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act for the reasons discussed above in that it does not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and in general to protect investors and the public interest. Further, IEX believes that its proposal does not raise any new or novel issues that have not previously been considered by the Commission when approving the existing IEX fees, or the auction fees of other national securities exchanges.
IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed pricing structure will increase competition and draw additional volume to the Exchange for IEX Auctions. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if fee schedules at other venues are viewed as more favorable. Consequently, the Exchange believes that the degree to which IEX fees could impose any burden on competition is extremely limited, and does not believe that such fees would burden competition between Members or competing venues in a manner that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while different fees are assessed in some circumstances, these different fees are not based on the type of Member entering the orders that execute in an IEX Auction, but based on the type of order entered, and all Members can submit any of IEX's permissible order types.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order (“Order”) to amend a prior order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act permitting certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and under rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (each, a “BDC”) and certain closed-end investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with affiliated investment funds. The Order would supersede the prior order.
New Mountain Finance Corporation (“NMFC”); NMF Ancora Holdings, Inc., NMF QID NGL Holdings, Inc., and NMF YP Holdings, Inc. (collectively, the “NMFC Subsidiaries”); New Mountain Finance SBIC, L.P. (“SBIC LP”); New Mountain Net Lease Corporation (“NMNLC”); New Mountain Guardian Partners II, L.P. (“Guardian II”); New Mountain Guardian II Master Fund-A, L.P. (“Guardian II Master A”); New Mountain Guardian II Master Fund-B, L.P. (“Guardian II Master B,” and together with Guardian II and Guardian II Master A, the “Guardian II Funds”); and New Mountain Finance Advisers BDC, L.L.C. (the BDC Adviser”) on behalf of itself and its successors.
The application was filed on July 10, 2017 and amended on October 31, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on December 15, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St., NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Robert A. Hamwee, New Mountain Finance Corporation, 787 Seventh Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY 10019.
Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6990 or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. NMFC, a Delaware corporation, is an externally managed, non-diversified, closed-end management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a BDC under section 54(a) of the Act.
2. The NMFC Subsidiaries are Wholly-Owned Investment Subs (as defined below) of NMFC, each structured as a Delaware corporation to hold equity or equity-like investments in portfolio companies organized as limited liability companies or other forms of pass-through entities. The NMFC Subsidiaries are not registered under the Act in reliance on the exclusion from the definition of “investment company” in section 3(a)(7) of the Act.
3. SBIC LP, a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub of NMFC, is structured as a Delaware limited partnership. SBIC LP received a license from the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to operate under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (“SBA Act”) as a small business investment company (each such licensed entity, a “SBIC Subsidiary”).
4. NMNLC, a Maryland corporation, is a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub of NMFC. NMNLC was formed to acquire real properties that are subject to “triple net” leases and will qualify as a real
5. Guardian II is a private fund organized in Delaware. Both Guardian II Master A and Guardian II Master B are private funds organized as Cayman Islands exempted limited partnerships. Applicants state that the investment objective of each of these funds is to generate both current income and capital appreciation by investing primarily in first lien and second lien secured loans as well as subordinated debt. None of the Guardian II Funds is registered under the Act in reliance on the exclusion from the definition of “investment company” in section 3(c)(7) of the Act. The investment activities of each of the Guardian II Funds is managed by the BDC Adviser pursuant to an investment management agreement.
6. BDC Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company, is registered with the Commission as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) and serves as the investment adviser to NMFC and each of the Guardian II Funds.
7. Applicants seek an Order to permit one or more Regulated Funds
8. Applicants state any of the Regulated Funds may, from time to time, form a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub.
9. When considering Potential Co-Investment Transactions for any Regulated Fund, the applicable Adviser will consider only the Objectives and Strategies, investment policies, investment positions, capital available for investment as described in the application (“Available Capital”), and other pertinent factors applicable to that Regulated Fund. The Advisers expect that any portfolio company that is an appropriate investment for a Regulated Fund should also be an appropriate investment for one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds, with certain exceptions based on available capital or diversification.
10. Other than pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as provided in conditions 7 and 8, and after making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the Adviser will present each Potential Co-Investment Transaction and the proposed allocation to the directors of the Board eligible to vote under section 57(o) of the Act (“Eligible Directors”), and the “required majority,” as defined in section 57(o) of the Act (“Required Majority”)
11. With respect to the pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments provided in conditions 7 and 8, a Regulated Fund may participate in a pro rata disposition or Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if,
12. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will have a financial interest in any Co-Investment Transaction, other than indirectly through share ownership in one of the Regulated Funds.
13. Applicants state that if an Adviser or its principal owners (the “Principals”), or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with an Adviser or the Principals, and any Affiliated Fund (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting shares of a Regulated Fund (the “Shares”), then the Holders will vote such Shares as required under condition.
14. Applicants believe that this condition will ensure that the Non-Interested Directors will act independently in evaluating the Co-Investment Program, because the ability of an Adviser or the Principals to influence the Non-Interested Directors by a suggestion, explicit or implied, that the Non-Interested Directors can be removed will be limited significantly. The Non-Interested Directors shall evaluate and approve any such independent third party, taking into account its qualifications, reputation for independence, cost to the shareholders, and other factors that they deem relevant.
1. Section 57(a)(4) of the Act prohibits certain affiliated persons of a BDC from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a company controlled by a BDC in contravention of rules as prescribed by the Commission. Under section 57(b)(2) of the Act, any person who is directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with a BDC is subject to section 57(a)(4). Applicants submit that each of the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds could be deemed to be a person related to each Regulated Fund in a manner described by section 57(b) by virtue of being under common control. Section 57(i) of the Act provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under section 57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under section 17(d) of the Act applicable to registered closed-end investment companies will be deemed to apply to transactions subject to section 57(a)(4). Because the Commission has not adopted any rules under section 57(a)(4), rule 17d-1 also applies to joint transactions with Regulated Funds that are BDCs. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies.
2. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit affiliated persons of a registered investment company from participating in joint transactions with the company unless the Commission has granted an order permitting such transactions. In passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the company's participation in the joint transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
3. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief, the Regulated Funds would be, in some circumstances, limited in their ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment opportunities. Applicants believe that the proposed terms and conditions will ensure that the Co-Investment Transactions are consistent with the protection of each Regulated Fund's shareholders and with the purposes intended by the policies and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the Co-Investment Transactions will be consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and on a basis that is not different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
Applicants agree that the Order will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each time an Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment Transaction for an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund that falls within a Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies, the Regulated Fund's Adviser will make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for such Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
2. (a) If the Adviser deems a Regulated Fund's participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated Fund, it will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the Regulated Fund.
(b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Adviser to be invested by the applicable Regulated Fund in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participant's Available Capital, up to the amount proposed to be invested by each. The applicable Adviser will provide the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund with information concerning each participating party's Available Capital to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of the Regulated Fund's investments for compliance with these allocation procedures.
(c) After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the applicable Adviser will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction (including the amount proposed to be invested by each participating Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund) to the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will co-invest with one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds only if, prior to the Regulated Fund's participation in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
(i) The terms of the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Fund and its shareholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated Fund or its shareholders on the part of any person concerned;
(ii) The Potential Co-Investment Transaction is consistent with:
(A) The interests of the shareholders of the Regulated Fund; and
(B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
(iii) the investment by any other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds would not disadvantage the Regulated Fund, and participation by the
(A) The Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the selection of such director or board observer, if any;
(B) the applicable Adviser agrees to, and does, provide periodic reports to the Regulated Fund's Board with respect to the actions of such director or the information received by such board observer or obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company; and
(C) any fees or other compensation that any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund or any affiliated person of any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund receives in connection with the right of the Affiliated Fund or a Regulated Fund to nominate a director or appoint a board observer or otherwise to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will be shared proportionately among the participating Affiliated Funds (who each may, in turn, share its portion with its affiliated persons) and the participating Regulated Funds in accordance with the amount of each party's investment; and
(iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not benefit the Advisers, the Affiliated Funds or the other Regulated Funds or any affiliated person of any of them (other than the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction), except (A) to the extent permitted by condition 13, (B) to the extent permitted by section 17(e) or 57(k) of the Act, as applicable, (C) indirectly, as a result of an interest in the securities issued by one of the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction, or (D) in the case of fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C).
3. Each Regulated Fund has the right to decline to participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction or to invest less than the amount proposed.
4. The applicable Adviser will present to the Board of each Regulated Fund, on a quarterly basis, a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies that were not made available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why the investment opportunities were not offered to the Regulated Fund. All information presented to the Board pursuant to this condition will be kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
5. Except for Follow-On Investments made in accordance with condition 8,
6. A Regulated Fund will not participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction unless the terms, conditions, price, class of securities to be purchased, settlement date, and registration rights will be the same for each participating Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund. The grant to an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund, of the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have an observer on the board of directors or similar rights to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will not be interpreted so as to violate this condition 6, if conditions 2(c)(iii)(A), (B) and (C) are met.
7. (a) If any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund elects to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of an interest in a security that was acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Advisers will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed disposition at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to participation by each Regulated Fund in the disposition.
(b) Each Regulated Fund will have the right to participate in such disposition on a proportionate basis, at the same price and on the same terms and conditions as those applicable to the participating Affiliated Funds and Regulated Funds.
(c) A Regulated Fund may participate in such disposition without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition; (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in such dispositions on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application); and (iii) the Board of the Regulated Fund is provided on a quarterly basis with a list of all dispositions made in accordance with this condition. In all other cases, the Adviser will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such disposition solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
(d) Each Affiliated Fund and each Regulated Fund will bear its own expenses in connection with any such disposition.
8. (a) If any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund desires to make a Follow-On Investment in a portfolio company whose securities were acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Advisers will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed Follow-On Investment, by each Regulated Fund.
(b) A Regulated Fund may participate in such Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in Follow-On Investments on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application). In all other cases, the Adviser will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such Follow-On Investment solely to the extent that a
(c) If, with respect to any Follow-On Investment:
(i) The amount of the opportunity is not based on the Regulated Funds' and the Affiliated Funds' outstanding investments immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Adviser to be invested by the applicable Regulated Fund in the Follow-On Investment, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity; then the investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participant's Available Capital, up to the maximum amount proposed to be invested by each.
(d) The acquisition of Follow-On Investments as permitted by this condition will be considered a Co-Investment Transaction for all purposes and subject to the other conditions set forth in the application.
9. The Non-Interested Directors of each Regulated Fund will be provided quarterly for review all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including investments made by other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the Non-Interested Directors may determine whether all investments made during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with the conditions of the Order. In addition, the Non-Interested Directors will consider at least annually the continued appropriateness for the Regulated Fund of participating in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions.
10. Each Regulated Fund will maintain the records required by section 57(f)(3) of the Act as if each of the Regulated Funds were a BDC and each of the investments permitted under these conditions were approved by the Required Majority under section 57(f) of the Act.
11. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will also be a director, general partner, managing member or principal, or otherwise an “affiliated person” (as defined in the Act) of an Affiliated Fund.
12. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding or disposing of any securities acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction (including, without limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any such securities registered for sale under the Securities Act) will, to the extent not payable by the Advisers under their respective investment advisory agreements with Affiliated Funds and the Regulated Funds, be shared by the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds in proportion to the relative amounts of the securities held or to be acquired or disposed of, as the case may be.
13. Any transaction fee
14. If the Holders own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the Shares of a Regulated Fund, then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on (1) the election of directors; (2) the removal of one or more directors; or (3) all other matters under either the Act or applicable state law affecting the Board's composition, size or manner of election.
15. Each Regulated Fund's chief compliance officer, as defined in rule 38a-1(a)(4), will prepare an annual report for its Board each year that evaluates (and documents the basis of that evaluation) the Regulated Fund's compliance with the terms and conditions of the application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Oregon, dated 11/16/2017.
Issued on 11/16/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 153820.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Oregon, California.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alabama (FEMA-4349-DR), dated 11/16/2017.
Issued on 11/16/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 11/16/2017, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 153958 and for economic injury is 153960.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Oregon, dated 11/16/2017.
Issued on 11/16/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 153830.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Oregon.
Social Security Administration.
Notice.
We intend to consolidate the current Retirement Research Consortium (RRC) and Disability Research Consortium (DRC) into a single program with a scope equivalent to the two currently existing programs. This single program will address issues related to Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (RSDI).
Nick Love, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (202) 358-6049. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
The Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics anticipates issuing a request for
We intend to award five-year cooperative agreements to research centers of high merit that provide a comprehensive research program addressing issues in Social Security, retirement, and disability policy. This realignment in the research program will benefit the agency by increasing administrative efficiency and coordination. It may also provide greater flexibility for research centers; we will consider applications from research centers that provide both retirement and disability research as well as from smaller, specialized research centers (
For the anticipated RFA, the Grants Management Official (GMO) will use the policies in 2 CFR 200 in conjunction with the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation, and award prescribed in the Social Security Administration's internal Grants Administration Manual. The project period for all cooperative agreements awarded will cover the timeframe of September 2018 through September 2023. Section 1110 of the Social Security Act authorizes the agency to conduct research through cooperative agreements. We will make awards using a competitive review and approval process subject to open and free competition.
The following is an estimated timeline of actions associated with this program:
The GMO will publish the agency's RFA, along with any amendments, and relevant questions and answers, electronically through the government-wide point of entry at
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to December 27, 2017.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents to S. Taylor, who may be reached at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The Department proposes requesting the following information, if not already included in an application, from a subset of visa applicants worldwide, in order to more rigorously evaluate such applicants for terrorism, national security-related, or other visa ineligibilities:
• Travel history during the last fifteen years, including source of funding for travel;
• Address history during the last fifteen years;
• Employment history during the last fifteen years;
• All passport numbers and country of issuance held by the applicant;
• Names and dates of birth for all siblings;
• Name and dates of birth for all children;
• Names and dates of birth for all current and former spouses, or civil or domestic partners;
• Social media platforms and identifiers, also known as handles, used during the last five years; and
• Phone numbers and email addresses used during the last five years.
Regarding travel history, applicants may be requested to provide details of their international or domestic (within their country of nationality) travel, if it appears to the consular officer that the applicant has been in an area while the area was under the operational control of a terrorist organization as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi). Applicants may be asked to recount or explain the details of their travel, and when possible, provide supporting documentation.
This information collection continues implementation of the directive of the President, in the
Based upon the data since this collection began implementation in May 2017, the Department estimates that 70,500 applicants annually will be requested to respond to this collection. The Department bases this estimate on the fact that consular officers worldwide asked an approximately 25,000 applicants questions contained in this information collection between May 2017 and October 2, 2017.
Failure to provide requested information will not necessarily result in visa denial, if the consular officer determines the applicant has provided a credible explanation why he or she cannot answer a question or provide requested supporting documentation, such that the consular officer is able to conclude that the applicant has provided adequate information to determine the applicant's eligibility to receive the visa. The collection of social media platforms and identifiers will not be used to deny visas based on applicants' race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, political views, gender, or sexual orientation.
Department of State consular officers at visa-adjudicating posts worldwide will ask the proposed additional questions to resolve questions about an applicant's identity or to vet for terrorism, national security-related, or other visa ineligibilities when the consular officer determines that the circumstances of a visa applicant, a review of a visa application, or responses in a visa interview indicate a need for greater scrutiny. The additional questions may be sent electronically to the applicant or be presented orally or in writing at the time of the interview. Consular officers will be mindful that, unlike some other forms of personal information required from visa applicants, social media identifiers may afford the user anonymity. Posts will assess their respective operating environments and collect the social media identifier information from applicants in a manner that best safeguards its transmission from applicant to post. In furtherance of this collection, consular officers are directed not to request user passwords; engage or interact with individual visa applicants on or through social media when conducting assessments of visa eligibility; not to violate or attempt to violate individual privacy settings or controls; and not to use social media or assess an individual's social media presence beyond established Department guidance. Consular staff are also directed in connection with this collection to take particular care to avoid collection of third-party information when conducting any social media reviews.
In accordance with section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)), and as continued in effect by Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, section 620A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Public Law 87-195, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2371(c)), and section 40(f) of the Arms Export Control Act, Public Law 90-629, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2780(f)), I hereby determine that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.
This notice shall be published in the
State Justice Institute.
Notice of meeting.
The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at SJI Headquarters in Reston, Virginia. The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 1st quarter of FY 2018, and other business. All portions of this meeting are open to the public.
State Justice Institute Headquarters, 11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1020, Reston, Virginia 20190.
Jonathan Mattiello, Executive Director, State Justice Institute, 11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1020, Reston, VA 20190, 571-313-8843,
On October 11, 2017, Alloy Property Company, LLC (Alloy or Applicant), filed an application under 49 U.S.C. 10903 requesting that the Surface Transportation Board (Board) authorize the third-party, or adverse, abandonment of approximately 2.625 miles of the remaining portions of the C&E and Bloomingdale lines of the Chicago Terminal Railroad Company (CTM) in Chicago, Cook County, Ill. (the Line). The Line originates at the western side of North Elston Avenue and proceeds east and south to Goose Island to a terminus near the intersection of North Branch Street and Halsted Street. There are no stations associated with the Line. The Line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Codes 60614 and 60642. The application is available on the Board's Web site at
Alloy recently purchased property in the North Branch area of Chicago and portions of Alloy's property are traversed by the Line. According to Alloy, no rail shipments have originated or terminated on the Line since January 2015. Alloy states that any businesses on the Line that once could have used rail transportation have ceased operations, relocated, or converted to the use of non-rail transportation. Alloy also states that its application is supported by local landowners and the City of Chicago.
In a decision served on August 16, 2017, Alloy was granted exemptions from several statutory provisions as well as waivers of certain Board regulations at 49 CFR pt. 1152 that were not relevant to its adverse abandonment application or that sought information not available to it. Specifically, Alloy was granted an exemption from 49 U.S.C. 10903(c)(2) and waiver of 49 CFR§ 1152.10-14 and § 1152.24(e)(1) pertaining to System Diagram Maps; exemption from 49 U.S.C. 10903(a)(3)(B) and waiver of 49 CFR 1152.20(a)(3) regarding posting at stations and terminals; waiver of 49 CFR 1152.21 pertaining to the form of the notice of intent; waiver and modification of certain required elements in an adverse abandonment application, specifically 49 CFR 1152.22(a)(5) (SDM information), § 1152.22(b) (condition of property), § 1152.22(c) (service provided), and § 1152.22(d) (revenue and cost data), and § 1152.22(i) (draft
Alloy states that the Line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in Alloy's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it. Alloy's entire case-in-chief for adverse abandonment was filed with the application.
Alloy states that there is no ongoing rail service on the Line, so there would be no employees affected by an adverse abandonment. Nevertheless, the interests of any railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
Any interested person may file either written comments concerning the proposed adverse abandonment and discontinuance, or protests (including protestant's entire opposition case). Persons who may oppose the proposed adverse abandonment and discontinuance but who do not wish to participate fully in the process by submitting verified statements of witnesses containing detailed evidence should file comments. Persons opposing the proposed adverse abandonment and discontinuance who wish to participate actively and fully in the process should file a protest, observing the filing, service, and content requirements of 49 CFR 1152.25. In a decision served October 25, 2017, a discovery dispute between the parties was referred to an Administrative Law Judge at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. A deadline for comments concerning the proposed adverse abandonment and discontinuance, as well as any reply from Alloy, will be set by a future Board decision upon resolution of the discovery issues.
Any request for an interim trail use/railbanking condition under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and 49 CFR 1152.29 should address whether the issuance of a certificate of interim trail use in this case would be consistent with the grant of an adverse abandonment and discontinuance application. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $300 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to Docket No. AB 1258 and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; (2) Alloy's counsel, Matthew J. Warren, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Filings may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should comply with the instructions found on the Board's “
An environmental assessment (EA) prepared by the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) was served on November 13, 2017. Any other persons who would like to obtain a copy of the EA may contact OEA by phone at the number listed below. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA is December 11, 2017. The comments received will be addressed in the Board's decision. A supplemental EA may be issued where appropriate.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment and discontinuance procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs and Compliance at (202) 245-0238 or refer to the full abandonment/discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR pt. 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
FMCSA is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, FMCSA is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
FMCSA proposes a survey to inquire about driver commuting practices to fulfill Section 5515 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, 2015 (FAST Act). Section 5515 of the FAST Act requires FMCSA to conduct a study on the safety effects of motor carrier operator commutes exceeding 150 minutes. The administrator is then required to submit a report to Congress containing the findings of the study.
The survey proposed within this information collection request is seeking to gather information on the prevalence of excessive (greater than 150 minutes) driver commuting in the commercial motor vehicle (CMV) industry, including the number and percentage of drivers who commute; the distances traveled, time zones crossed, time spent commuting, and methods of transportation used; research on the impact of excessive commuting on safety and CMV driver fatigue; and the commuting practices of CMV drivers and policies of motor carriers.
Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2017-0313 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nicole Michel, Research Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by email at
On December 4, 2015, the FAST Act was signed into law (Pub. L. 114-94,129 Stat. 1312, 1557 (Dec. 4, 2015)). Section 5515 of the FAST Act directs the FMCSA Administrator to “conduct a study on the safety effects of motor carrier operator commutes exceeding 150 minutes” (subsection (a)). The Act further specifies that a report containing the findings of this study should be submitted to Congress no later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Act (subsection (b)). FMCSA must complete this information collection to the meet the specified congressional requirements set forth in the FAST Act.
Additionally, during the 114th Congress (2015-2016), legislation entitled the Truck Safety Act was introduced. This legislation provided greater context to inform study of this area (S. 1739, 114th Cong. § 7) by proposing the following:
(a) EFFECTS OF EXCESSIVE COMMUTING.—The Administrator of the FMCSA shall conduct a study of the effects of excessive commuting on safety and commercial motor vehicle driver fatigue.
(b) STUDY.—In conducting the study, the Administrator shall consider—
(1) the prevalence of excessive driver commuting in the commercial motor vehicle industry, including the number and percentage of drivers who commute;
(2) the distances traveled, time zones crossed, time spent commuting, and methods of transportation used;
(3) research on the impact of excessive commuting on safety and commercial motor vehicle driver fatigue;
(4) the commuting practices of commercial motor vehicle drivers and policies of motor carriers;
(5) the FMCSA regulations, policies, and guidance regarding excessive driver commuting; and
(6) any other matters the Administrator considers appropriate.
In the past two decades, as the number of workers has increased and the distance to affordable housing has also increased in most metropolitan areas, commuting times have increased in the United States. According to the
Long commuting times can adversely affect commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers in multiple ways, for example:
•
•
The objective of the survey proposed in this ICR is to learn more about the following CMV driver characteristics:
• Work history;
• Commuting time, transportation mode, and recording of that time;
• Driving schedules;
• Rests and breaks;
• Miles driven annually; and
• Demographics.
The information collection is a one-time, Web-based collection, including surveys of current and past drivers of freight and passenger vehicles. The survey will be entirely online. There will be no paper survey. The general survey approach and design is as follows:
1. FMCSA will provide a random sample of 12,000 drivers based on recent Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) data, augmented with the drivers' last known mailing address, obtained by cross-referencing Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) data with the licensing States' CDL driver histories. The samples will be divided into one list for drivers who operate (or previously operated) freight vehicles and a second list for those who drive (or previously drove) passenger-carrying vehicles.
2. Using a mail-Web methodology, the driver commute survey will be sent out by the research team, on behalf of FMCSA, to the 12,000 selected drivers identified in step 1. These drivers will be solicited to complete an online survey, using a recruitment letter (with a $2 pre-incentive), a reminder postcard, and a second follow-up letter. The letter will inform the drivers that they will receive a check for $10 upon completion of the survey, which is expected to average 20 minutes to complete. Our initial expectation is that 4.17 percent of the 12,000 (500) will complete the survey on the Web. The burden analysis is based on this figure of 500 responses.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) prohibits agencies from conducting information collection (IC) activities until they analyze the need for the collection of information and how the collected data will be managed. Agencies must also analyze whether technology could be used to reduce the burden imposed on those providing the data. The Agency must estimate the time burden required to respond to the IC requirements, such as the time required to complete a particular form. The Agency submits its IC analysis and burden estimate to OMB as a formal ICR; the Agency cannot conduct the information collection until OMB approves the ICR.
FMCSA asks for comment on the IC requirements of this study. Comments can be submitted to the docket as outlined under
1. Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions.
2. The accuracy of the estimated burden.
3. Ways for FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information.
4. Ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of denials.
FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 109 individuals who requested an exemption from the vision standard in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
FMCSA received applications from 109 individuals who requested an exemption from the vision standard in the FMCSRs.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for two years if it finds “such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater then, the level that would be achieved absent such an exemption.”
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the eligibility criteria, the terms and conditions for Federal exemptions, and an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information provided by the applicant.
The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Therefore, the 109 applicants in this notice have been denied exemptions from the physical qualification standards in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
The following 33 applicants had no experience operating a CMV:
The following 18 applicants did not have three years of experience driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies:
The following eight applicants did not have three years of recent experience driving a CMV with the vision deficiency:
The following seven applicants did not have sufficient driving experience during the past three years under normal highway operating conditions (gaps in driving record):
The following six applicants were denied for multiple reasons:
The following two applicants have not had stable vision for the preceding three year period:
The following three applicants met the current federal vision standards. Exemptions are not required for applicants who meet the current regulations for vision:
The following 27 applicants will not be driving interstate, intrastate commerce, or are not required to carry a DOT medical card:
The following five applicants perform transportation for the Federal government, state, or any political sub-division of the state:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 43 individuals from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on September 26, 2017. The exemptions expire on September 26, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On August 24, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 43 individuals requesting an exemption from diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and requested comments from the public (82 FR 40215). The public comment period ended on September 25, 2017, and one comment was received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Vicky Johnson stated that Minnesota DVS has no objections in granting exemptions to the following Minnesota drivers: Bradley S. Hanson, Mutasim S. Mohamed, and Jacob T. Streifel.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the program eligibility criteria and an individualized assessment of information submitted by each applicant. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the August 24, 2017,
These 43 applicants have had ITDM over a range of one to 29 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past five years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keeping a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 43 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for three individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on October 22, 2017. The exemptions expire on October 22, 2019. Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2017.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0118 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for five years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical
The three individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the three applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The three drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
As of October 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers: Joshua Abel (MD); Jeremy H. Fryburg (PA); and Anthony E. Martens (SD).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0118. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 22, 2017, and will expire on October 22, 2019.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the three exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of denials.
FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 35 individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) prohibiting persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) from operating CMVs in interstate commerce.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
FMCSA received applications from 35 individuals who requested an exemption from the FMCSRs prohibiting persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a CMV from operating CMVs in interstate commerce.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for five years if it finds such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such an exemption. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the eligibility criteria, the terms and conditions for Federal exemptions, and an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information provided by the applicant.
The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Therefore, the 35 applicants in this notice have been denied exemptions from the physical qualification standards in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitutes final action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
The following 25 applicants do not meet the minimum time requirement for being seizure-free, either on or off of anti-seizure medication:
The following applicant did not obtain the support of his physician to operate a vehicle in interstate commerce:
The following nine applicants are intrastate drivers:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from two individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2017
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0252 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The two individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The advisory criteria states the following:
If an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the Medical Examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a six-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.
In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a five-year period or more.
As a result of Medical Examiners misinterpreting advisory criteria as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified Medical Examiner based on the physical qualification standards and medical best practices.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate CMV drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” Since the January 15, 2013 notice, the Agency has published additional notices granting requests from individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP) (78 FR 3069).
Mr. Pamperin, 55, has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2006. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2007. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Pamperin receiving an exemption.
Mr. Seijas, 34, has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2007. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2007. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Seijas receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 10 individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on August 13, 2017. The exemptions expire on August 13, 2019. Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2017.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0203; FMCSA-2011-0389; FMCSA-2012-0050; FMCSA-2012-0294; FMCSA-2012-0094; FMCSA-2014-0382; FMCSA-2015-0116; FMCSA-2015-0117 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for five years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391—MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: § 391.41(b)(8), paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.]
The 10 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 10 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The 10 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
As of August 13, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 10 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2010-0203; FMCSA-2011-0389; FMCSA-2012-0050; FMCSA-2012-0294; FMCSA-2012-0094; FMCSA-2014-0382; FMCSA-2015-0116; FMCSA-2015-0117. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 13, 2017, and will expire on August 13, 2019.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 10 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 99 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2017.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Nos. FMCSA-2007-27801; FMCSA-2007-28536; FMCSA-2008-0175; FMCSA-2008-0267; FMCSA-2009-0207; FMCSA-2011-0192; FMCSA-2013-0181; FMCSA-2013-0182 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 99 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control. The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population.
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e). Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified by the notice in the
As of October 3, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 16 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 47291; 76 FR 61139):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0192. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 3, 2017, and will expire on October 3, 2019.
As of October 15, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 43 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (72 FR 45480; 72 FR 58360; 73 FR 45519; 73 FR 61188; 78 FR 50486; 78 FR 65031):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket numbers: FMCSA-2007-27801; FMCSA-2008-0175; FMCSA-2013-0182. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 15, 2017, and will expire on October 15, 2019.
As of October 18, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Justin R. Freeman (ID) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 38435; 78 FR 63294).
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0181. The exemption is applicable as of October 18, 2017, and will expire on October 18, 2019.
As of October 19, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (72 FR 50442; 72 FR 59332; 74 FR 41486; 74 FR 53583):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket numbers: FMCSA-2007-28536; FMCSA-2009-0207. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 19, 2017, and will expire on October 19, 2019.
As of October 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (73 FR 52451; 73 FR 63041):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2008-0267. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 22, 2017, and will expire on October 22, 2019.
As of October 23, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 13 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 38435; 78 FR 63294):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0181. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 23, 2017, and will expire on October 23, 2019.
As of October 28, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Ricky A. Root (IL) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 50486; 78 FR 65031).
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0182. The exemption is applicable as of October 28, 2017, and will expire on October 28, 2019.
As of October 30, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 50486; 78 FR 65031):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0182. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 30, 2017, and will expire on October 30, 2019.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Request for public comment on a proposed collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. This document describes one collection of information for which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intends to seek OMB approval.
Written comments should be submitted by January 26, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0096 through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For programmatic issues, contact Barbara Sauers, Regional Operations and Program Delivery, NRO-011, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 202-366-0144. For legal issues and background information, contact Roland (R.T.) Baumann III, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-300, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 202-366-1834.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of information for which the agency is seeking approval from OMB:
For all of these grants, as directed in statute, NHTSA uses a consolidated application process that relies on the Highway Safety Plan (HSP) States submit under the Section 402 program as a single application. The information required to be submitted for these grants includes the HSP consisting of information on the highway safety planning process, performance report, performance plan, problem identification, highway safety countermeasure strategies, projects and funding amounts, certifications and assurances, and application materials that cover Section 405 grants and the reauthorized Section 1906 grant.
Consistent with the statute, NHTSA has implemented an interim final rule that creates uniform procedures for States to apply for grant funds (81 FR 32554, May 23, 2016), and will issue a final rule in the near future. These procedures specify the information that is required to be submitted to receive a grant and the type of information required to verify performance under the grants. Under these efforts, NHTSA has taken actions to streamline the required application procedures, including the expanded use of an electronic submission process identified as the Grants Management Solutions Suite (GMSS). This system will replace the current grants management tracking system and allows States to apply for and receive grants electronically. NHTSA plans to introduce an updated version of GMSS for fiscal year 2019. Implementation will occur after several participating States have completed system usability testing, and NHTSA has reviewed and considered any feedback provided.
As indicated above, States may be required to receive an assessment of certain covered programs in order to be eligible for some grants under Section 405. Separate from these requirements, States also may request assessments in these areas at their discretion. NHTSA uses two different assessment approaches based on the traffic safety area covered. For occupant protection and impaired driving, assessments are based on NHTSA's
• Section 402 grants: 57 (fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs);
• Section 405 Grants (except Impaired Driving Countermeasures, Motorcyclist Safety and Nonmotorized Grants) and Section 1906 Grant: 56 (fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands); and
• Section 405, Impaired Driving Countermeasures, Motorcyclist Safety and Nonmotorized Grants: 52 (fifty States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).
The estimated burden hours for the assessment part of the collection of information are based on the average number of State assessments that are carried out each year in each of the covered grant areas:
• Section 405, Occupant protection grants: 9 assessments;
• Section 405, Traffic safety information system improvement grants: 11 assessments; and
• Section 405, Impaired driving countermeasure grants: 4 assessments.
Under the grant application and annual report requirements, we estimate that it will take each respondent approximately 240 hours to collect, review and submit the required information to NHTSA for the Section 402 program. We further estimate that it will take each respondent approximately 180 hours to collect, review and submit the required information to NHTSA for the Section 405 program. For traffic safety information system improvement grants, we estimate that it takes 165 hours to respond to questions under the assessment. For occupant protection and impaired driving countermeasures grants, we estimate that it takes 80 hours to provide the required information and respond to questions under an assessment. Based on the above information, the estimated annual burden hours for all respondents are 26,615 hours.
Assuming the average salary of individuals responsible for submitting the information is $50.00 per hour, the estimated cost for each respondent is $23,350 and the estimated total cost for all respondents is $1,330,750.
Please submit any comments, identified by the docket number in the heading of this document, by any of the methods described in the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research Technology (OST-R), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice; Reinstatement to Collect Data.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the BTS to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reinstate previously approved OMB Number 2139-0046 for the following information collection: Barrier Failure Reporting in Oil and Gas Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). BTS entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) to include an industry-wide repository of equipment failure data, analyze and aggregate information collected under this program, and publish reports that will provide BSEE, the industry, and all OCS stakeholders with essential information about failure types and modes of critical safety barriers for offshore operations related to well control. The data collection effort that is the subject of this notice, addressed the collection of failure data as referenced in recently issued BSEE regulations on (81 FR 25888), April 29, 2016 and (81 FR 61834), September 7, 2016. BTS received permission to collect the data under an emergency OMB control number on September 29, 2016. Through this notice, BTS is requesting permission to reinstate this previously approved OMB control number. This information collection is necessary to aid BSEE, the oil and gas industry, and other stakeholders in identifying barrier failure trends and causes of critical safety barrier failure events.
Comments must be received by December 27, 2017.
BTS seeks public comments on its proposed continuation of information collection. Comments should address whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimated burden hours of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: BTS Desk Officer.
Demetra V. Collia, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Statistical and Economic Analysis (OSEA), RTS-31, E36-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Phone No. (202) 366-1610; Fax No. (202) 366-3383; email:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35; as amended) and 5 CFR part 1320 require each Federal agency to obtain OMB approval to continue an information collection activity. BTS is seeking OMB approval for the following BTS information collection activity:
BTS has agreed through an MOU with BSEE to undertake the information collection identified in the previously approved BSEE notice for OMB Control Number(s) 1014-0028, expiration 4/30/2019 and the BSEE notice with OMB Control Number 1014-0003, expiration 8/31/2019, to ensure the confidentiality of submissions under CIPSEA. The information collection is limited to the establishment of BTS as an authorized repository. This information collection request does not create any additional burden for respondents.
On March 30, 2017, BTS published a notice (82 FR 15787) encouraging interested parties to submit comments to docket number DOT-OST-2017-0043 and allowing for a 60-day comment period. The comment period closed on May 30, 2017. To view comments, go to
All comments the BTS received were posted without change to
BTS announced on March 30, 2017 in a
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before December 27, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Leonard by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before December 27, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Leonard by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (L-DEO) to incidentally harass, by Level A and Level B harassment only, marine mammals during marine geophysical survey activities in the southwest Pacific Ocean.
This Authorization is valid from October 27, 2017 through October 26, 2018.
Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and analyzed the potential impacts to marine mammals that would result from L-DEO's planned surveys. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed on October 27, 2017. A copy of the EA and FONSI is available upon request (see
On May 17, 2017, NMFS received a request from L-DEO for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to conducting a marine geophysical survey in the southwest Pacific Ocean. On September 13, 2017, we deemed L-DEO's application for authorization to be adequate and complete. L-DEO's request is for take of 38 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment and Level A harassment. Neither L-DEO nor NMFS expects mortality to result from this activity, and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. The planned activity is not expected to exceed one year, hence, we do not expect subsequent MMPA incidental harassment authorizations would be issued for this particular activity.
Researchers from California State Polytechnic University, California Institute of Technology, Pennsylvania State University, University Southern California, University of Southern Mississippi, University of Hawaii at Manoa, University of Texas, and University of Wisconsin Madison, with funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, propose to conduct three high-energy seismic surveys from the research vessel (R/V)
The North Island two-dimensional (2-D) survey would consist of approximately 35 days of seismic operations plus approximately 2 days of transit and towed equipment deployment/retrieval. The
The proposed surveys would occur within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and territorial sea of New Zealand. The proposed North Island 2-D survey would occur within ~37-43° S. between 180° E. and the east coast of North Island along the Hikurangi margin. The proposed North Island 3-D survey would occur over a 15 x 60 kilometer (km) area offshore at the Hikurangi trench and forearc off North Island within ~38-39.5° S., ~178-179.5° E. The proposed South Island 2-D survey would occur along the Puysegur margin off South Island within ~163-168° E. between 50° S. and the south coast of South Island. Please see Figure 1 and Figure 2 in L-DEO's IHA application for maps depicting the
A detailed description of the planned project is provided in the
NMFS published a notice of proposed IHA in the
L-DEO's application describes their approach to modeling Level A and Level B harassment zones. In summary, L-DEO acquired field measurements for several array configurations at shallow, intermediate, and deep-water depths during acoustic verification studies conducted in the northern Gulf of Mexico in 2007 and 2008; these were presented in Tolstoy
In 2015, L-DEO explored the question of whether the Gulf of Mexico calibration data adequately informs the model to predict isopleths in other areas by conducting a retrospective sound power analysis of one of the lines acquired during a L-DEO seismic survey offshore New Jersey in 2014 (Crone, 2015). NMFS presented a comparison of the predicted radii (
Briefly, Crone's (2015) analysis, specific to the survey site offshore New Jersey, confirmed that in-situ, site specific measurements and estimates of 160 decibels (dB) root mean square (rms) and 180 dB rms isopleths collected by the
In 2010, L-DEO assessed the accuracy of their modeling approach by comparing the sound levels of the field measurements acquired in the Gulf of Mexico study to their model predictions (Diebold
In 2012, L-DEO used a similar process to model distances to isopleths corresponding to the isopleths corresponding to Level A and Level B harassment thresholds for a shallow-water seismic survey in the northeast Pacific Ocean offshore Washington State. L-DEO conducted the shallow-water survey using the same airgun configuration planned for the surveys considered in this IHA (
NMFS continues to work with L-DEO to address the issue of incorporating site-specific information for future authorizations for seismic surveys. However, L-DEO's current modeling approach (supported by the three studies discussed previously) represents the best available information for NMFS to reach determinations for this IHA. As described earlier, the comparisons of L-DEO's model results and the field data collected in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore Washington State, and offshore New Jersey illustrate a degree of conservativeness built into L-DEO's model for deep water, which NMFS expects to offset some of the limitations of the model to capture the variability resulting from site-specific factors. Based upon the best available information (
Regarding the Commission's recommendation that NMFS convene an internal working group to determine what data sources are considered best available for the various species and in the various areas, NMFS may consider future action to address these issues, but currently intends to address these questions through ongoing interactions with the U.S. Navy, academic institutions, and other organizations.
Regarding the recommendation that NMFS convene a working group to determine how best to incorporate uncertainty in density data that are extrapolated, NMFS may consider future action to address these issues, but currently intends to address these questions through ongoing interactions with the U.S. Navy, academic institutions, and other organizations.
Even in the case of short-beaked common dolphins, dusky dolphins and southern right whale dolphins that approach the vessel, for which the power down requirement does not apply, we believe the likelihood that a group of bow-riding dolphins would occur within 14 m of the array to be so low as to be discountable. For instance, though common dolphin group size varies depending on season, depth, sea surface temperature, Stockin (2008) reported the most frequently observed group size in the Hauraki Gulf to be 21-30 animals. We believe the possibility of a group of 21-30 dolphins approaching within 14 m of the airgun array and being taken by Level A harassment is so low as to be discountable. Therefore, for the species categorized as low-frequency cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, phocid pinnipeds and otariid pinnipeds, we do not authorize Level A take by group size, when at least one take is estimated to occur for the species.
The Level A harassment zones (peak SPL) for high-frequency cetaceans are estimated at 229.2 m, 119.0 m, and 229.2 m, for the North Island 2-D, North Island 3-D, and South Island 2-D surveys, respectively. We analyzed the potential for a group of any of the species in the high-frequency functional hearing group (that occur in the survey areas) occurring between 229.2 m (largest distance to the isopleth corresponding to the Level A harassment threshold) and 100 m (the distance to the 100 m exclusion zone (EZ) for the smallest element in the array, for all species in the high-frequency functional hearing group) of the array. The species in this group for which Level A take is authorized in this IHA include the hourglass dolphin, spectacled porpoise and pygmy sperm whale. We are not aware of information on the group sizes of these species in the waters off New Zealand. However, based on the best available information, estimated group sizes are lower than the number of takes authorized, when at least 1 Level A take is authorized, for these species: Hourglass dolphin group size was reported as averaging 2-6 individuals in Antarctic waters (Santora, 2012) whereas 15, 10, and 12 takes by Level A harassment are authorized (for North Island 2-D, North Island 3-D, and South Island 2-D survey, respectively); spectacled porpoise group size was reported as 2 individuals in Antarctic waters (Sekiguchi
NMFS considered requirement of shutdown upon visual detection of sperm whales at any distance. We have included a mitigation measure that would require shutdown of the array on acoustic detection of sperm whales at any distance (except in instances where the sperm whale can be definitively localized as being located outside the 500 m EZ). The reasoning behind the shutdown requirement upon acoustic detection is provided in more detail below (see section on Mitigation). Based on the best available information, we believe that acoustic detections of sperm whales would most likely be representative of the foraging behavior we intend to minimize disruption of, while visual observations of sperm whales would represent resting between bouts of such behavior. Occurrence of resting sperm whales at distances beyond the 500 m exclusion zone may not indicate a need to implement shutdown. Therefore, this measure has not been added to the final IHA. This is discussed in greater detail in the Mitigation section, below.
NMFS agrees with the Commission that consistency in mitigation measures across incidental take authorizations (ITAs) for similar activities is a worthwhile goal, to the extent practicable. However, NMFS also must determine the most appropriate mitigation measures for a given ITA, taking into account factors unique to that ITA, such as the type, extent, location, and timing of activities, and therefore, complete consistency in mitigation measures across ITAs for similar activities will not always be possible. NMFS is still in the process of determining best practice, via solicitation of public comment, for the use of a suite of mitigation measures in ITAs for marine geophysical surveys. We will take into consideration the Commission's recommendations with regard to mitigation measures as we work toward determinations on best practices for mitigation measures in IHAs for geophysical surveys. Ultimately our determination will be based on the best available science and will be communicated clearly to ITA applicants.
The commenter also expressed concern regarding South Island Hector's dolphins, specifically the subpopulation that resides in Te Waewae Bay, noting that they exhibit high site fidelity and that the survey will coincide with Hector's dolphin calving season. We agree with the concerns raised by this comment, especially given the proximity of the planned track lines of the South Island 2-D survey to Te Waewae Bay (see Figure 2 in the IHA application). In response to this concern, we have incorporated a mitigation measure that would require shutdown of the array upon visual detection of South Island Hector's dolphins at any distance. Based on this comment, we have also added a mitigation measure requiring shutdown of the array upon acoustic detection of a Hector's dolphin during North and South Island surveys, if the acoustic detection can be definitively identified as a Hector's dolphin. More information is provided below in the section on Revisions to the IHA That Have Occurred Since the Proposed IHA.
Regarding the concern that tourism companies could be impacted financially by the planned surveys, this statement was not supported by any information and we cannot speculate as to any potential effects to tourism companies as a result of L-DEO's survey. NMFS also does not have any authority under the MMPA to restrict activities based on potential impacts to tourism, as we do not authorize the activity itself, as described above.
With regard to the abundance estimates for the other species in Table 2, we made our findings about the applicable management units and abundance estimates for those species based on the best available information.
The commenter expressed concern that the number of required PSOs is not sufficient, and suggested observers be deployed on other vessels in addition to the
The commenter expressed concern that sound propagation should be verified in the field to ensure accuracy of the sound propagation models. The commenter expressed that this would be of particular concern in regards to the South Island Hector's dolphin subpopulation that has site fidelity to Te Waewae Bay. As described above, NMFS believes that L-DEO's current modeling approach represents the best available information for NMFS to reach determinations for this IHA. We refer the reader to the response to Comment 1, above, for a more detailed discussion of L-DEO's acoustic modeling methodology. In addition, as described above, results of acoustic modeling represent just one component of the analysis during the MMPA authorization process, as NMFS also takes into consideration other factors associated with the activity and, as described herein, our determination of the appropriate distance for mitigation zones is not based on acoustic modeling. With respect to the use of sound source verification to verify the distances to isopleths that coincide with harassment thresholds for Hector's dolphins, we have incorporated a requirement in the IHA that the array must be shut down upon visual or acoustic detection of Hector's dolphins at any distance, as described below.
The commenter expressed concern about the 500 m exclusion zone and recommended that the exclusion zone should be extended to between 1-1.5 km for all species of marine mammals detected visually and/or acoustically, and referred to more conservative zones required by the Code for some marine mammals. As described in the
The commenter expressed concern that the use of the single 40 in
The commenter expressed concern with the use of the MBES and SBP, citing a report on a mass stranding of melon-headed whales on the Madagascar coast in 2008 that was attributed to use of a MBES (Southall
A Kongsberg EM 122 MBES would be operated continuously during the proposed surveys, but not during transit to and from the survey areas. Due to the lower source level of the MBES relative to the
Regarding the 2008 mass stranding of melon-headed whales in Madagascar, it should be noted that the report to which the commenter refers states that while the MBES was determined as the most likely cause of the stranding event, there was no unequivocal and easily identifiable single cause of the event, such as those that have been implicated in previous marine mammal mortalities (
The commenter expressed concern that a shutdown requirement upon any observation of Hector´s dolphins at any distance, including upon acoustic detection, is warranted. As described above, based on the best available information, NMFS agrees this measure is warranted, and has incorporated these requirements in the IHA. See the section on Mitigation and the section on Revisions to the IHA That Have Occurred Since the Proposed IHA, below, for details.
In summary, we have determined the mitigation measures contained in the IHA ensure the least practicable impact on marine mammal species potentially affected.
In addition to the comments above, NMFS received comments from the MSROC and an additional comment from the general public. The comment letter from the MSROC affirmed that there is significant support from the MSROC for the IHA to be issued for the proposed surveys and for the surveys to be conducted. A private citizen expressed concern that animals should not be harmed in the process of surveying or studying them. NMFS considered this comment, however, it did not contain any substantive information regarding the potential for the proposed surveys to harm marine mammals.
Based on public comments and a recalculation of the take estimates in the proposed IHA, we have made revisions to the IHA since we published the notice of the proposed IHA in the
Section 4 of the application summarizes available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the southwest Pacific Ocean off New Zealand and summarizes information related to the population, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA. The populations of marine mammals considered in this document do not occur within the U.S. EEZ and are therefore not assigned to stocks and are not assessed in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (
In addition to the marine mammal species known to occur in planned survey areas, there are 16 species of marine mammals with ranges that are known to potentially occur in the waters of the planned survey areas, but they are categorized as “vagrant” under the New Zealand Threat Classification System (Baker
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals estimated within a particular study or survey area. All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication.
All species that could potentially occur in the planned survey areas are included in table 2. However, of the species described in Table 2, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of one subspecies, the Maui dolphin (also known as the North Island Hector's dolphin), is such that take is not expected to occur as a result of the surveys. The Maui dolphin is one of two subspecies of Hector's dolphin (the other being the South Island Hector's dolphin), both of which are endemic to New Zealand. The Maui dolphin has been demonstrated to be genetically distinct from the South Island subspecies of Hector's dolphin based on studies of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (Pichler
We have reviewed L-DEO's species descriptions, including life history information, distribution, regional distribution, diving behavior, and acoustics and hearing, for accuracy and completeness. We refer the reader to Section 4 of L-DEO's IHA application, rather than reprinting the information here. A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by L-DEO's survey, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
The effects of underwater noise from marine geophysical survey activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment and, in a limited number of instances, auditory injury (PTS) of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through the IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes are primarily by Level B harassment, as use of the seismic airguns have the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for mysticetes and high frequency cetaceans (
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the exposure estimate and associated numbers of take authorized.
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are provided in Table 3 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into estimating the area ensonified above the relevant acoustic thresholds.
The survey entails use of a 36-airgun array with a total discharge of 6,600 in
For deep and intermediate-water cases, L-DEO determined that the field measurements cannot be used readily to derive zone of ensonification, as at those sites the calibration hydrophone was located at a roughly constant depth of 350-500 m, which may not intersect all the SPL isopleths at their widest point from the sea surface down to water depths of approximately 2,000 m (See Appendix H in NSF-USGS 2011). At short ranges, where the direct arrivals dominate and the effects of seafloor interactions are minimal, the data recorded at the deep and slope sites are suitable for comparison with modeled levels at the depth of the calibration hydrophone. At longer ranges, the comparison with the mitigation model—constructed from the maximum SPL through the entire water column at varying distances from the airgun array—is the most relevant. Please see the IHA application for further discussion of summarized results.
For deep water (>1,000 m), L-DEO used the deep-water radii obtained from model results down to a maximum water depth of 2000 m. The radii for intermediate water depths (100-1,000 m) were derived from the deep-water ones by applying a correction factor (multiplication) of 1.5, such that observed levels at very near offsets fall below the corrected mitigation curve (See Fig. 16 in Appendix H of NSF-USGS, 2011). The shallow-water radii were obtained by scaling the empirically derived measurements from the Gulf of Mexico calibration survey to account for the differences in tow depth between the calibration survey (6 m) and the planned surveys (9 m). A simple scaling factor is calculated from the ratios of the isopleths determined by the deep-water L-DEO model, which are essentially a measure of the energy radiated by the source array.
Measurements have not been reported for the single 40-in
L-DEO's modeling methodology is described in greater detail in the IHA application (LGL 2017) and we refer the reader to that document rather than repeating it here. The estimated distances to the Level B harassment isopleth for the
Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary based on marine mammal hearing groups, were calculated based on modeling performed by L-DEO using the NUCLEUS software program and the NMFS User Spreadsheet, described below. The updated acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds (
The values for SEL
In order to more realistically incorporate the Technical Guidance's weighting functions over the seismic array's full acoustic band, unweighted spectrum data for the
Inputs to the User Spreadsheets in the form of estimated SLs are shown in Table 5. User Spreadsheets used by L-DEO to estimate distances to Level A harassment isopleths (SEL
Note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used, isopleths produced may be overestimates to some degree, which will ultimately result in some degree of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3-D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For mobile sources, such as the planned seismic surveys, the User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which a stationary animal would not incur PTS if the sound source traveled by the animal in a straight line at a constant speed.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. The best available scientific information was considered in conducting marine mammal exposure estimates (the basis for estimating take).
No systematic aircraft- or ship-based surveys have been conducted for marine mammals in offshore waters of the South Pacific Ocean off New Zealand that can be used to estimate species densities that we are aware of, with the exception of Hector's dolphin surveys that have occurred off the South Island. Densities for Hector's dolphins off the South Island were estimated using averaged estimated summer densities from the most southern stratum of an East Coast South Island survey (Otago) and a West Coast South Island survey (Milford Sound), both in three offshore strata categories (0-4 nautical miles (nm), 4-12 nm, and 12-20 nm; MacKenzie and Clement 2014, 2016). The estimated density for Hector's dolphins for the South Island 2-D survey was based on the proportion of that survey occurring in each offshore stratum.
For cetacean species other than Hector's dolphin, densities were derived from data available for the Southern Ocean (Butterworth
For the remaining cetacean species, the relative abundances of individual species expected to occur in the survey areas were estimated within species groups. The relative abundances of these species were estimated based on several factors, including information on marine mammal observations from areas near the planned survey areas (
For each species group (
We are not aware of any information regarding at-sea densities of pinnipeds off New Zealand. As such, a surrogate species (northern fur seal) was used to estimate offshore pinniped densities for the planned surveys. The at-sea density of northern fur seals reported in Bonnell
NMFS acknowledges there is some uncertainty related to the estimated density data and the assumptions used in their calculations. Given the lack of available data on marine mammal density in the planned survey areas, the approach used is based on the best available data. In recognition of the uncertainties in the density data, we have included an additional 25 percent contingency in take estimates to account for the fact that density estimates used to estimate take may be underestimates of actual densities of marine mammals in the survey area. However, there is no information to suggest that the density estimates used are in fact underestimates.
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate. In order to estimate the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels that would result in Level A harassment or Level B harassment, radial distances from the airgun array to predicted isopleths corresponding to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds are calculated, as described above. Those radial distances are then used to calculate the area(s) around the airgun array predicted to be ensonified to sound levels that exceed the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds. The area estimated to be ensonified in a single day of the survey is then calculated (Table 9), based on the areas predicted to be ensonified around the array and the estimated trackline distance traveled per day. This number is then multiplied by the number of survey days (
Factors including water depth, array configuration, and proportion of each survey occurring within territorial seas (versus within the EEZ) were also accounted for in estimates of ensonified areas. This was accomplished by selecting a track line for a single day (for each of the three planned surveys) that were representative of the entire planned survey(s) and using that representative track line to calculate daily ensonified areas. Daily track line distance was selected depending on array configuration (
Estimated takes for all marine mammal species are shown in Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13. As described above, we authorize the incidental takes that are expected to occur as a result of the planned surveys within the New Zealand EEZ but outside of the New Zealand territorial sea.
As described above, the take estimates shown in Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13 have been revised slightly since we published the notice of the proposed IHA in the
It should be noted that the take numbers shown in Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13 are expected to be conservative for several reasons. First, in the calculations of estimated take, 50 percent has been added in the form of operational survey days (equivalent to adding 50 percent to the line km to be surveyed) to account for the possibility of additional seismic operations associated with airgun testing and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard, and in recognition of the uncertainties in the density estimates used to estimate take as described above. Additionally, marine mammals would be expected to move away from a loud sound source that represents an aversive stimulus, such as an airgun array, potentially reducing the number of Level A takes. However, the extent to which marine mammals would move away from the sound source is difficult to quantify and is therefore not accounted for in the take estimates shown in 11, 12, 13 and 14.
For some marine mammal species, we authorize a different number of incidental takes than the number of incidental takes requested by L-DEO (see Tables 18, 19 and 20 in the IHA application for requested take numbers). For instance, for several species, L-DEO increased the take request from the calculated take number to 1 percent of the estimated population size. We do not believe it is likely that 1 percent of the estimated population size of those species will be taken by L-DEO's planned surveys, therefore we do not authorize the take numbers requested by L-DEO in their IHA application (LGL, 2017). However, in recognition of the uncertainties in the density estimates used to estimate take as described above, we believe it is reasonable to assume that actual takes may exceed numbers of takes calculated based on available density estimates; therefore, we have increased take estimates for all marine mammal species by an additional 25 percent, to account for the fact that density estimates used to estimate take may be underestimates of actual densities of marine mammals in the survey area. Additionally, L-DEO requested authorization for 10 takes of Hector's dolphins during the North Island 2-D survey (LGL, 2017). However, we do not authorize any takes of Hector's dolphins or Maui dolphins during North Island surveys. We believe the likelihood of the planned North Island 2-D survey encountering a Hector's dolphin or Maui dolphin is so low as to be discountable. As described above, the North Island subpopulation of Hector's dolphin (aka Maui dolphin) is very unlikely to be encountered during either planned North Island survey due to the very low estimated abundance of the subpopulation and due to the geographic isolation of the subpopulation (currently limited to the west coast of the North Island, whereas all planned North Island surveys would occur on the eastern side of the island). As such, we do not authorize any takes of Hector's dolphins or Maui dolphins during L-DEO's planned North Island surveys.
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and
(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
L-DEO has reviewed mitigation measures employed during seismic research surveys authorized by NMFS under previous incidental harassment authorizations, as well as recommended best practices in Richardson
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the activities, L-DEO proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
(1) Vessel-based visual mitigation monitoring;
(2) Vessel-based passive acoustic monitoring;
(3) Establishment of an exclusion zone;
(4) Power down procedures;
(5) Shutdown procedures;
(6) Ramp-up procedures; and
(7) Vessel strike avoidance measures.
In addition to the mitigation measures proposed by L-DEO, NMFS has incorporated the following additional measures:
(1) Shutdown upon observation of a large whale with calf at any distance;
(2) Shutdown upon observation of a Hector's dolphin or Maui dolphin (during North Island 2-D and North Island 3-D surveys only) at any distance;
(3) Shutdown upon observation of an aggregation (6 or more) of large whales of any species at any distance;
(4) Shutdown upon any observation (visual or acoustic) of a beaked whale or
(5) Shutdown upon acoustic detection of a sperm whale (with certain exceptions) at any distance.
As described above, measures (3), (4) and (5) incorporated by NMFS above were added to the suite of mitigation measures after we published the notice of the proposed IHA in the
Protected Species Observer (PSO) observations will take place during all daytime airgun operations and nighttime start ups (if applicable) of the airguns. Airgun operations will be suspended when marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, designated Exclusion Zones (as described below). PSOs will also watch for marine mammals near the vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the planned start of airgun operations. PSOs will monitor the entire extent of the modeled Level B harassment zone (Table 3) (or, as far as they are able to see, if they cannot see to the extent of the estimated Level B harassment zone). Observations will also be made during daytime periods when the
During seismic operations, a minimum of four visual PSOs will be based aboard the
The PSOs must have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, record observational data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements. PSO resumes will be provided to NMFS for approval. At least two PSOs must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working as PSOs during a high energy seismic survey, with no more than eighteen months elapsed since the conclusion of the at-sea experience. One “experienced” visual PSO will be designated as the lead for the entire protected species observation team. The lead will coordinate duty schedules and roles for the PSO team and serve as primary point of contact for the vessel operator. The lead PSO will devise the duty schedule such that “experienced” PSOs are on duty with those PSOs with appropriate training but who have not yet gained relevant experience, to the maximum extent practicable.
The PSOs must have successfully completed relevant training, including completion of all required coursework and passing a written and/or oral examination developed for the training program, and must have successfully attained a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the natural sciences and a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the biological sciences and at least one undergraduate course in math or statistics. The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has acquired the relevant skills through alternate training, including (1) secondary education and/or experience
Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) will take place to complement the visual monitoring program and to inform mitigation measures. Visual monitoring typically is not effective during periods of poor visibility or at night, and even with good visibility, is unable to detect marine mammals when they are below the surface or beyond visual range. Acoustic monitoring can be used in addition to visual observations to improve detection, identification, and localization of cetaceans. The acoustic monitoring will serve to inform mitigation measures and to alert visual observers (if on duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are detected. PAM is only useful when marine mammals vocalize, but it can be effective either by day or by night and does not depend on good visibility. PAM will be monitored in real time so that visual observers can be alerted when marine mammals are detected acoustically.
The PAM system consists of hardware (
At least one acoustic PSO (in addition to the four visual PSOs) will be on board. The towed hydrophones will be monitored 24 hours per day (either by the acoustic PSO or by a visual PSO trained in the PAM system if the acoustic PSO is on break) while at the seismic survey area during airgun operations, and during most periods when the
When a vocalization is detected, the acoustic PSO will take necessary action depending on the species and location of the animal detected. If the species and/or location of the animal(s) warrants immediate shutdown of the array, the acoustic PSO will contact the vessel operator immediately to call for a shutdown (see the section on Mitigation, below, for scenarios that require shutdown based on acoustic detection), If the species and/or location of the animal(s) does not warrant immediate shutdown, the acoustic PSO will contact visual PSOs immediately, to alert them to the presence of marine mammals (if they have not already been detected visually), in order to facilitate a power down or shutdown, if required. The information regarding the marine mammal acoustic detection will be entered into a database.
In summary, a typical daytime cruise will have scheduled two observers (visual) on duty from the observation platform, and an acoustic observer on the passive acoustic monitoring system.
An exclusion zone (EZ) is a defined area within which occurrence of a marine mammal triggers mitigation action intended to reduce the potential for certain outcomes,
In their IHA application, L-DEO proposed to establish EZs based upon modeled radial distances to auditory injury zones (
An appropriate EZ based on cumulative sound exposure level (SEL
Use of monitoring and shutdown or power-down measures within defined exclusion zone distances is inherently an essentially instantaneous proposition—a rule or set of rules that requires mitigation action upon detection of an animal. This indicates that definition of an exclusion zone on the basis of cumulative sound exposure level thresholds, which require that an animal accumulate some level of sound energy exposure over some period of time (
Cumulative SEL thresholds are more relevant for purposes of modeling the potential for auditory injury than they are for dictating real-time mitigation, though they can be informative (especially in a relative sense). We recognize the importance of the accumulation of sound energy to an understanding of the potential for auditory injury and that it is likely that, at least for low-frequency cetaceans, some potential auditory injury is likely impossible to mitigate and should be considered for authorization.
In summary, our intent in prescribing a standard exclusion zone distance is to (1) encompass zones for most species within which auditory injury could occur on the basis of instantaneous exposure; (2) provide additional protection from the potential for more severe behavioral reactions (
Our use of 500 m as the EZ is a reasonable combination of factors. This zone is expected to contain all potential auditory injury for all marine mammals (high-frequency, mid-frequency and low-frequency cetacean functional hearing groups and otariid and phocid pinnipeds) as assessed against peak pressure thresholds (NMFS, 2016) (Tables 6, 7, 8). It is also expected to contain all potential auditory injury for high-frequency and mid-frequency cetaceans as well as otariid and phocid pinnipeds as assessed against SEL
The PSOs will also establish and monitor a 500 m buffer zone (
A power down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use such that the smallest single element of the array is in operation (
Following a power down, airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the 500 m EZ. The animal will be considered to have cleared the 500 m EZ if the following conditions have been met:
• It is visually observed to have departed the 500 m EZ; or
• it has not been seen within the 500 m EZ for 15 min in the case of small odontocetes and pinnipeds; or
• it has not been seen within the 500 m EZ for 30 min in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales.
This power down requirement will be in place for all marine mammals, with the exception of certain small delphinoids under certain circumstances. As defined here, the small delphinoid group is intended to encompass those members of the Family Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily approach the source vessel for purposes of interacting with the vessel and/or airgun array (
We include this small delphinoid exception because power-down/shutdown requirements for small delphinoids under all circumstances represent practicability concerns without likely commensurate benefits for the animals in question. Small delphinoids are generally the most commonly observed marine mammals in the specific geographic region and would typically be the only marine mammals likely to intentionally approach the vessel. As described below, auditory injury is extremely unlikely to occur for mid-frequency cetaceans (
A large body of anecdotal evidence indicates that small delphinoids commonly approach vessels and/or towed arrays during active sound production for purposes of bow riding, with no apparent effect observed in those delphinoids (
A power down could occur for no more than 30 minutes maximum at any given time. If, after 30 minutes of the array being powered down, marine mammals had not cleared the 500 m EZ (as described above), a shutdown of the array will be implemented (see Shut Down Procedures, below). Power down is only allowed in response to the presence of marine mammals within the designated EZ. Thus, the single 40 in
The single 40-in
The shutdown requirement, like the power down requirement, is waived for dolphins of the following species: Short-beaked common dolphin, dusky dolphin and southern right whale dolphin. If there is uncertainty regarding identification (
• Upon observation of a large whale (
• Upon acoustic detection of a sperm whale (except in cases where the location of an acoustically detected sperm whale can be definitively localized as outside the 500 m EZ). Sperm whales are not necessarily expected to display physical avoidance of sound sources (
We also considered requirement of shutdown upon visual detection of sperm whales at any distance. Here, we assume that acoustic detections of sperm whales would most likely be representative of the foraging behavior we intend to minimize disruption of, while visual observations of sperm whales would represent resting between bouts of such behavior. Occurrence of resting sperm whales at distances beyond the exclusion zone may not indicate a need to implement shutdown. If the location of an acoustically detected sperm whale can be definitively localized by the PAM operator as outside the 500 m EZ, then the requirement to shutdown the array is waived. If there is any uncertainty as to whether or not an acoustically detected sperm whale is within the 500 m EZ, shutdown must be implemented.
• Upon any observation (visual or acoustic) of a beaked whale or
• Upon visual observation of an aggregation (6 or more) of large whales of any species (
• Upon observation (visual or acoustic) of a Hector's dolphin or Maui dolphin (during North Island and South Island surveys) at any distance. As described above, the Maui dolphin is considered one of the rarest dolphins in the world with a population size estimated at just 63 individuals (Baker
• In the event of a shutdown due to visual observation of a beaked whale,
Ramp-up of an acoustic source is intended to provide a gradual increase in sound levels following a power down or shutdown, enabling animals to move away from the source if the signal is sufficiently aversive prior to its reaching full intensity. The ramp-up procedure involves a step-wise increase in the number of airguns firing and total array volume until all operational airguns are activated and the full volume is achieved. Ramp-up is required after the array is powered down or shut down due to mitigation. If the airgun array has been shut down for reasons other than mitigation (
Ramp-up will begin by activating a single airgun of the smallest volume in the array and will continue in stages by doubling the number of active elements at the commencement of each stage, with each stage of approximately the same duration.
If airguns have been powered down or shut down due to PSO detection of a marine mammal within or approaching the 500 m EZ, ramp-up will not be initiated until all marine mammals have cleared the EZ, during the day or night. Visual and acoustic PSOs are required to monitor during ramp-up. If a marine mammal were detected by visual PSOs within or approaching the 500 m EZ during ramp-up, a power down (or shut down if appropriate) will be implemented as though the full array were operational. Criteria for clearing the EZ will be as described above.
Thirty minutes of pre-clearance observation of the 500 m EZ and 500 m buffer zone are required prior to ramp-up following any extended deactivation of the array (
Ramp-up will be planned to occur during periods of good visibility when possible. However, ramp-up is allowed at night and during poor visibility if the 500 m EZ and 500 m buffer zone have been monitored by visual PSOs for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and if acoustic monitoring has occurred for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up with no acoustic detections during that period. Ramp-up of the array may not occur at night or during poor visibility if the PAM system is not functional.
The operator is required to notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead PSO. A designated PSO must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed. The operator must provide information to PSOs documenting that appropriate procedures were followed. Following deactivation of the array for reasons other than mitigation, the operator is required to communicate the near-term operational plan to the lead PSO with justification for any planned nighttime ramp-up.
L-DEO proposed that ramp up would not occur following an extended power down (LGL 2017). However, as we do not allow extended power downs during the planned surveys, we also do not include this as a mitigation measure; instead, ramp up is required after any power down or shutdown of the array (with the one exception as described above). L-DEO also proposed that ramp up would occur when the airgun array begins operating after 8 minutes without
Vessel strike avoidance measures are intended to minimize the potential for collisions with marine mammals. We note that these requirements do not apply in any case where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply.
The vessel strike avoidance measures include the following: Vessel operator and crew will maintain a vigilant watch for all marine mammals and slow down or stop the vessel or alter course to avoid striking any marine mammal. A visual observer aboard the vessel will monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel according to the parameters stated below. Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone will be either third-party observers or crew members, but crew members responsible for these duties will be provided sufficient training to distinguish marine mammals from other phenomena. Vessel strike avoidance measures will be followed during surveys and while in transit.
The vessel will maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from large whales (
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
L-DEO submitted a marine mammal monitoring and reporting plan in section XIII of their IHA application. Monitoring that is designed specifically to facilitate mitigation measures, such as monitoring of the EZ to inform potential power downs or shutdowns of the airgun array, are described above.
L-DEO's monitoring and reporting plan includes the following measures:
As described above, PSO observations will take place during daytime airgun operations and nighttime start ups (if applicable) of the airguns. During seismic operations, at least four visual PSOs will be based aboard the
PSOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate numbers of animals potentially `taken' by harassment (as defined in the MMPA). They will also provide information needed to order a power down or shutdown of airguns when a marine mammal is within or near the EZ.
When a sighting is made, the following information about the sighting will be recorded:
1. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (
2. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, visibility, and sun glare.
All observations and power downs or shutdowns will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be entered into an electronic database. The accuracy of the data entry will be verified by computerized data validity checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. These procedures will allow
Results from the vessel-based observations will provide:
1. The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun power down or shutdown);
2. Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS;
3. Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted;
4. Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity; and
5. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity.
As described above, the acoustic PSO will monitor the PAM system in real time. When a vocalization is detected, the acoustic PSO will take necessary action depending on the species and location of the animal detected, whether immediately calling for a shutdown or immediately contacting visual PSOs to alert them to the presence of marine mammals in order to facilitate a power down or shutdown, if required.
PAM will also take place to complement the visual monitoring program as described above. Please see the Mitigation section above for a description of the PAM system and the acoustic PSO's duties. The acoustic PSO will record data collected via the PAM system, including the following: An acoustic encounter identification number, whether it was linked with a visual sighting, date, time when first and last heard and whenever any additional information was recorded, position and water depth when first detected, bearing if determinable, species or species group (
A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities). The report will also include estimates of the number and nature of exposures that occurred above the harassment threshold based on PSO observations, including an estimate of those on the trackline but not detected.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, our analysis applies to all the species listed in Table 2, given that NMFS expects the anticipated effects of the planned seismic surveys to be similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified species-specific factors to inform the analysis. As described above, we authorize only the takes estimated to occur outside of New Zealand territorial sea (Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13); however, for the purposes of our negligible impact analysis and determination, we consider the total impacts to the affected marine mammal populations resulting from the specified activity, including takes that are expected to occur within the territorial sea (Table 14).
NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality will occur as a result of L-DEO's planned surveys, even in the absence of mitigation. As discussed in the
We authorize a limited number of instances of Level A harassment of 21 marine mammal species (Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13). However, we believe that any PTS incurred in marine mammals as a result of the planned activity would be in the form of only a small degree of PTS, not severe hearing impairment, and would be unlikely to affect the fitness of any individuals, because of the constant movement of both the
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are discussed in the
Prey species are mobile and are broadly distributed throughout the
As described above, the take estimates shown in Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13 have been revised slightly since we published the notice of the proposed IHA in the
The mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or severity of takes by allowing for detection of marine mammals in the vicinity of the vessel by visual and acoustic observers, and by minimizing the severity of any potential exposures via power downs and/or shutdowns of the airgun array. Based on previous monitoring reports for substantially similar activities that have been previously authorized by NMFS, we expect that the mitigation will be effective in preventing at least some extent of potential PTS in marine mammals that may otherwise occur in the absence of the mitigation.
The ESA-listed marine mammal species under our jurisdiction that are likely to be taken by the planned surveys include the southern right, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whale (listed as endangered) and the South Island Hector's dolphin (listed as threatened). We authorize a very limited amount of take for these species (Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13), relative to their population sizes, therefore we do not expect population-level impacts to any of these species. The other marine mammal species that may be taken by harassment during the planned surveys are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. There is no designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals within the project area; and of the non-listed marine mammals for which we authorize take, none are considered “depleted” or “strategic” by NMFS under the MMPA.
NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks due to L-DEO's planned survey would result in only short-term (temporary and short in duration) effects to individuals exposed. Animals may temporarily avoid the immediate area, but are not expected to permanently abandon the area. Major shifts in habitat use, distribution, or foraging success are not expected.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the marine mammal species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• The anticipated impacts of the planned activity on marine mammals would primarily be temporary behavioral changes due to avoidance of the area around the survey vessel;
• The number of instances of PTS that may occur are expected to be very small in number (Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13). Instances of PTS that are incurred in marine mammals would be of a low level, due to constant movement of the vessel and of the marine mammals in the area, and the nature of the survey design (not concentrated in areas of high marine mammal concentration);
• The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during the planned surveys to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity;
• The planned project area does not contain known areas of significance for mating or calving;
• The potential adverse effects on fish or invertebrate species that serve as prey species for marine mammals from the planned surveys would be temporary and spatially limited; and
• The mitigation measures, including visual and acoustic monitoring, power downs, and shutdowns, are expected to minimize potential impacts to marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers; so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities. Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13 provide numbers of take by Level A harassment and Level B harassment authorized. These are the numbers we use for purposes of the small numbers analysis.
The numbers of marine mammals that we authorize to be taken would be considered small relative to the relevant populations (less than 12 percent for all species) for the species for which abundance estimates are available. No known current worldwide or regional population estimates are available for ten species under NMFS' jurisdiction that could be incidentally taken as a result of the planned surveys: the pygmy right whale; pygmy sperm whale; True's beaked whale; short-finned pilot whale; false killer whale; bottlenose dolphin; short-beaked common dolphin; southern right whale dolphin; Risso's dolphin; and spectacled porpoise.
NMFS has reviewed the geographic distributions and habitat preferences of these species in determining whether the numbers of takes authorized herein are likely to represent small numbers. Pygmy right whales have a circumglobal distribution and occur throughout coastal and oceanic waters in the Southern Hemisphere (between 30 to 55° South) (Jefferson
Based on the broad spatial distributions and habitat preferences of these species relative to the areas where the planned surveys are planned to occur, NMFS concludes that the authorized take of these species likely represent small numbers relative to the affected species' overall population sizes, though we are unable to quantify the take numbers as a percentage of population.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
The NMFS Permits and Conservation Division is authorizing the incidental take of six species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA (the southern right, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whale and South Island Hector's dolphin). Under section 7 of the ESA, we initiated consultation with the NMFS OPR Interagency Cooperation Division for the issuance of this IHA. In October, 2017, the NMFS OPR Interagency Cooperation Division issued a Biological Opinion with an incidental take statement, which concluded that the issuance of the IHA was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the southern right, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whale and South Island Hector's dolphin. The Biological Opinion also concluded that the issuance of the IHA would not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for these species.
NMFS has issued an IHA to the L-DEO for the potential harassment of small numbers of 38 marine mammal species incidental to marine geophysical surveys in the southwest Pacific Ocean, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements are incorporated.
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 |