| Page Range | 58097-58332 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 58331 - Recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of the State of Israel and Relocating the United States Embassy to Israel to Jerusalem | |
| 82 FR 58201 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 58200 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 58220 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 58257 - Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors; Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 58097 - Rules of Practice and Procedures To Formulate or Amend a Marketing Agreement, a Marketing Order, or Certain Research and Promotion Orders | |
| 82 FR 58135 - Milk in the Florida Marketing Area; Supplemental Notification of Hearing | |
| 82 FR 58202 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 58220 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 58219 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Analysis of Alternative Strategies for Financing Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefits When Trust Fund Balances Are Insufficient | |
| 82 FR 58229 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 58229 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 58181 - International Affairs; U.S. Fishing Opportunities in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Regulatory Area | |
| 82 FR 58181 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Marine Sanctuary Permits | |
| 82 FR 58185 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Application Forms for Membership on a National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 58186 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 58197 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10395, The First National Bank of Florida, Milton, Florida | |
| 82 FR 58197 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10381, LandMark Bank of Florida, Sarasota, Florida | |
| 82 FR 58195 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an Existing Collection (EPA ICR No. 0276.16); Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 58193 - Marlow Hydro, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process | |
| 82 FR 58191 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-598); Comment Request; Extension | |
| 82 FR 58191 - Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order; Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company | |
| 82 FR 58193 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 58194 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 58198 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10517, Hometown National Bank, Longview, Washington | |
| 82 FR 58197 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10509, Northern Star Bank, Mankato, Minnesota | |
| 82 FR 58197 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10506, NBRS Financial, Rising Sun, Maryland | |
| 82 FR 58199 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10503, The Freedom State Bank, Freedom, Oklahoma | |
| 82 FR 58200 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10496, Vantage Point Bank, Horsham, Pennsylvania | |
| 82 FR 58200 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10453, Second Federal Savings and Loan Association of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois | |
| 82 FR 58200 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10417, American Eagle Savings Bank, Boothwyn, Pennsylvania | |
| 82 FR 58200 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10415, Premier Community Bank of the Emerald Coast, Crestview, Florida | |
| 82 FR 58198 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10397, Citizens Bank of Northern California, Nevada City, California | |
| 82 FR 58198 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10391, First Southern National Bank, Statesboro, Georgia | |
| 82 FR 58199 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10389, Public Savings Bank, Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania | |
| 82 FR 58199 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10383, BankMeridian, N.A., Columbia, South Carolina | |
| 82 FR 58198 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10160-SolutionsBank, Overland Park, Kansas | |
| 82 FR 58199 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10151, Commerce Bank of Southwest Florida, Fort Myers, Florida | |
| 82 FR 58199 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10133, Riverview Community Bank, Otsego, Minnesota | |
| 82 FR 58198 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10072, Mirae Bank, Los Angeles, California | |
| 82 FR 58115 - Air Plan Approval; Florida; Stationary Sources Emissions Monitoring; Withdrawal | |
| 82 FR 58135 - Milk in the Florida Marketing Area; Notification of Hearing | |
| 82 FR 58153 - Statutory Cable, Satellite, and DART License Reporting Practices | |
| 82 FR 58275 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 58276 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 58267 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 58265 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 58129 - Pacific Island Fisheries; 2017 Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures | |
| 82 FR 58196 - Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to State Operating Permit for PacifiCorp Energy-Hunter Power Plant (Emery County, Utah) | |
| 82 FR 58215 - U.S. Endangered Species; Receipt of Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 82 FR 58228 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 58227 - Submission for Review: CyberCorps®: Scholarship for Service (SFS) Registration Web Site | |
| 82 FR 58225 - Submission for Review: Survivor Annuity Election for a Spouse, RI 20-63; Cover Letter Giving Information About the Cost To Elect Less Than the Maximum Survivor Annuity, RI 20-116; Cover Letter Giving Information About the Cost To Elect the Maximum Survivor Annuity, RI 20-117 | |
| 82 FR 58227 - Submission for Review: Application To Make Deposit or Redeposit (CSRS)-SF 2803 and Application To Make Service Credit Payment for Civilian Service (FERS)-SF 3108 | |
| 82 FR 58226 - Submission for Review: Marital Status Certification Survey, RI 25-7 | |
| 82 FR 58277 - Pricing for the 2018 World War I Centennial Silver Dollar | |
| 82 FR 58172 - Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination | |
| 82 FR 58175 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination, and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part | |
| 82 FR 58178 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Anti-Circumvention Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders | |
| 82 FR 58170 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Anti-Circumvention Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders | |
| 82 FR 58145 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Black River, Port Huron, MI | |
| 82 FR 58209 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 58221 - U.S. Army Installation Management Command; Davy Crockett M101 Depleted Uranium Spotting Rounds | |
| 82 FR 58224 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Addition of New Turbine Building Sump Pumps | |
| 82 FR 58248 - Determination of Use of Emergency Reserve Fund | |
| 82 FR 58271 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 82 FR 58274 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 82 FR 58272 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 82 FR 58248 - Procurement Thresholds for Implementation of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 | |
| 82 FR 58260 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 58262 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 58251 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 82 FR 58252 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 58206 - National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Stored Biologic Samples; Proposed Cost Schedule and Guidelines for Proposals to Use Serum, Plasma, and Urine Samples | |
| 82 FR 58230 - Product Change-Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 58229 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 58250 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 82 FR 58167 - Nuseed Americas Inc.; Availability of Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Canola Genetically Engineered for Altered Oil Profile | |
| 82 FR 58253 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 58258 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 82 FR 58168 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 58201 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 58218 - Draft Finding of No Significant Impact for the Proposed Rehabilitation or Replacement of Buildings at the Gulfport Job Corps Center, 3300 20th Street, Gulfport, Mississippi 39501 | |
| 82 FR 58202 - Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules | |
| 82 FR 58164 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery; Proposed 2018-2020 Fishing Quotas | |
| 82 FR 58216 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Bioterrorism Preparedness Act: Entity/Individual Information | |
| 82 FR 58270 - Notice of Request for Revisions of an Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 58113 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Columbia River, Vancouver, WA | |
| 82 FR 58107 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 58137 - Airworthiness Directives; Zodiac Seats France, Cabin Attendant Seats | |
| 82 FR 58205 - Submission for OMB Review; Presolicitation Notice and Response | |
| 82 FR 58212 - Agency Information Collection Request; 60-Day Public Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 58186 - Extension of the Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration for TRICARE Eligible Beneficiaries Diagnosed With Autism Spectrum Disorder | |
| 82 FR 58187 - Arms Sales Notification | |
| 82 FR 58169 - In the Matter of: Shantia Hassanshahi, a/k/a Shantia Hassan Shahi, a/k/a Shahi, a/k/a Shantia Haas, a/k/a Sean Haas, 6041 Weeping Banyan Lane, Woodland Hills, CA 91367; Amended Order Denying Export Privileges | |
| 82 FR 58270 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation Projects | |
| 82 FR 58149 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA | |
| 82 FR 58113 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA | |
| 82 FR 58151 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA | |
| 82 FR 58147 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA | |
| 82 FR 58243 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of a Series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500 Buffer Protect Strategy ETF Under the ETF Series Solutions Trust, Under Rule 14.11(c)(3), Index Fund Shares | |
| 82 FR 58235 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of a Series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500 Enhanced Growth Strategy ETF Under the ETF Series Solutions Trust, Under Rule 14.11(c)(3), Index Fund Shares | |
| 82 FR 58240 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4759 | |
| 82 FR 58232 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 3304 | |
| 82 FR 58230 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of No Objection To Advance Notice Filing Concerning the Use of the Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (“SWIFT”) Messaging Network in OCC's Cash Settlement Process | |
| 82 FR 58210 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 58213 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 58214 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 58212 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 58214 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD); Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 58212 - Office of the Director; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 58223 - Information Collection: Public Records | |
| 82 FR 58201 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
| 82 FR 58211 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Application for Participation in Food and Drug Administration Fellowship Programs | |
| 82 FR 58275 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action | |
| 82 FR 58116 - Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; 2008 Ozone Transport | |
| 82 FR 58213 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance To Conduct Formative Research (NIAID) | |
| 82 FR 58118 - Findings of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Submittals for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) | |
| 82 FR 58217 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 82 FR 58195 - Adequacy Status of the Metro-East St. Louis, Illinois 2008 Ozone Standard Nonattainment Area for the Submitted Maintenance Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes | |
| 82 FR 58142 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Manley Hot Springs, AK | |
| 82 FR 58144 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Yuma, CO | |
| 82 FR 58133 - Tomatoes Grown in Florida; Decreased Assessment Rate | |
| 82 FR 58098 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 58102 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 58280 - System for Regulating Market Dominant Rates and Classifications | |
| 82 FR 58110 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 58122 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Revision to References for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector To Incorporate Latest Edition of Certain Industry, Consensus-Based Standards | |
| 82 FR 58154 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Revision to References for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector To Incorporate Latest Edition of Certain Industry, Consensus-Based Standards | |
| 82 FR 58140 - Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 58156 - Proposed Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to California: Lead, Chlorodibromomethane, and Dichlorobromomethane |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting a final rule to amend the definition of “judge” in the rules of practice and procedure to formulate or amend a marketing agreement, marketing order, or certain research and promotion orders. The new definition adds a presiding official appointed by the Secretary, as well as an administrative law judge, as an official who may preside over the rulemaking hearing.
William Richmond, Acting Chief of Staff, AMS, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-5115.
AMS is issuing this final rule to amend the definition of “judge” in the rules of practice and procedure to formulate or amend a marketing agreement, marketing order, or certain research and promotion orders under 7 CFR part 900 and 1200.
AMS has rules of practice and procedure to formulate marketing agreements and marketing orders under 7 CFR part 900. Those rules of practice and procedure are applicable to proceedings under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended [50 Stat. 246]. In addition, rules of practice and procedure also exist for proceedings under the Cotton Research and Promotion Act, as amended [7 U.S.C. 2101-2119], the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act, as amended [7 U.S.C. 2701-2718], the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act [7 U.S.C. 4801-4819], and the Potato Research and Promotion Act, as amended [7 U.S.C. 2611-2627]. Those rules appear under 7 CFR part 1200.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) prescribes general procedures for agency rulemaking. See 5 U.S.C. 553. For rulemaking hearings, the APA provides “there shall preside at the taking of evidence (1) the agency; (2) one or more members of the body which compromise the agency; or (3) one or more administrative law judges appointed under section 3105 of this title.” 5 U.S.C. 556(b). Under both 7 CFR parts 900 and 1200, as defined, “judge” is limited to “any administrative law judge appointed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3105, and assigned to conduct the proceeding.” 7 CFR 900.2(d), 900.51(d), 1200.2(f), and 1200.51(g). In order to better align with the provisions the APA, USDA is amending the definition of “judge” in both 7 CFR parts 900 and 1200 to include a presiding official appointed by the Secretary. This revision to the definition of “judge” will provide AMS with the flexibility to have a presiding official assigned to a hearing in the event that an ALJ is not available for the assignment or as circumstances warrant.
This final rule establishes agency rules of practice and procedure. Under the APA, prior notice and opportunity for comment are not required for the promulgation of agency rules of practice and procedure. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Only substantive rules require publication 30 days prior to their effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Moreover, this final rule is necessary to carry out an upcoming hearing on an emergency amendment to the Florida Federal Milk Marketing Order as part of the Government's response to hurricane relief efforts. Therefore, this final rule is effective upon publication in the
Furthermore, under 5 U.S.C. 804, this rule is not subject to Congressional review under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121. In addition, because prior notice and opportunity for comment are not required to be provided for this final rule, this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Because this rule is not a significant regulatory action, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative proceedings that must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The review reveals that this rule does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant federalism consultation under Executive Order 13132.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of
This rule contains no information collections or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Blueberries, Consumer information, Cotton, Dairy, Eggs, Fluid milk, Honey, Marketing agreements, Mushrooms, Peanuts, Popcorn, Pork, Potatoes, Promotion, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Soybeans, Watermelons.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 900 and 1200 are amended to as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
7 U.S.C. 610.
(d) The term
7 U.S.C. 608c.
(d) The term
7 U.S.C. 2111, 2620, 2713, 4509, 4609, 4814, 4909, 6106, 6306, 6410, 7418, and 7486.
7 U.S.C. 2103, 2614, 2704, and 4804.
(f)
7 U.S.C. 2111, 2620, 2713, 4509, 4609, 4814, 4909, 6008, 6106, 6306, 6410, 6807, 7106, 7418, 7486, and 7806.
(g)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-22-08, which applied to all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2014-22-08 required revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements. This new AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements, and removes airplanes from the applicability. This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 16, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 16, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 67042, November 12, 2014).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-22-08, Amendment 39-18013 (79 FR 67042, November 12, 2014) (“AD 2014-22-08”). AD 2014-22-08 applied to all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0092, dated May 13, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A320 family aeroplanes are currently defined and published in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The airworthiness limitations applicable to the Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), which are approved by EASA, are published in ALS Part 3.
The instructions contained in the ALS Part 3 have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness. Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
Previously, EASA issued AD 2013-0148 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-22-08] to require accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in ALS Part 3 at Revision 01. The new ALS Part 3 Revision 03 (hereafter referred to as `the ALS' in this [EASA] AD) includes new and/or more restrictive requirements.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0148, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in the ALS.
The unsafe condition is a safety-significant latent failure (that is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we revise the cost estimate of the proposed AD. DAL pointed out that revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements is a fleet-based effort. DAL stated that it estimates the cost to be 200 work-hours per operator, which would total $17,000 per operator. DAL also stated that each operator would incur a similar cost that is independent of fleet size.
We disagree with the request to revise the cost estimate. The cost estimate in ADs is based on an estimated cost per airplane regardless of any operator's fleet size, which varies by operator. Additionally, the cost estimate describes only the direct costs and time necessary to perform the specific actions required by this AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur incidental costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs such as the time necessary for planning or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which might vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
DAL requested that we revise paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD from approving previously approved AMOCs for AD 2014-22-08 as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, to being approved for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. DAL pointed out that this change would allow the AMOCs previously approved for AD 2014-22-08 to be applicable to both paragraphs (g) and (i) of the proposed AD, eliminating the need for new AMOCs to address issues identified in AD 2014-22-08 and carried over to the proposed AD.
Spirit Airlines noted that, based on paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD, AMOCs approved for AD 2014-22-08 would not be valid for the new requirements of paragraph (i) of the proposed AD.
We agree that certain AMOCs approved for AD 2014-22-08 are approved for the corresponding provisions of this AD. We have added paragraph (k)(1)(iii) to this AD to specify that the certain previous AMOCs that are approved for AD 2014-22-08 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD. The previous AMOCs include Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, CMR, Revision 05, dated April 6, 2017.
Spirit Airlines requested that we refer to Revision 05, dated April 6, 2017, of
We do not agree with the request to specify the revised service information in this final rule. The revised service information includes new and more restrictive items and is applicable to additional airplanes. To require incorporation of the revised service information, we would have to issue a supplement NPRM for public comment and would incur undue delay in issuance of the final rule. In addition, EASA has not published an AD mandating Revision 05, dated April 6, 2017, of ALS Part 3. We are considering further rulemaking to supersede this final rule to require incorporating the revised service information. We have made no change to this AD in this regard.
DAL requested that we allow the use of later approved revisions of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3. DAL stated that permitting later approved revisions would reduce the number of requests for an AMOC. DAL also mentioned that Airbus has requested approval of Variation 5.1, of ALS Part 3, as an AMOC to AD 2014-22-08.
We do not agree with DAL's request to allow the use of later approved revisions of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3. We cannot use the phrase, “or later approved revisions,” in an AD when referring to the service document because doing so violates Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations for approval of materials “incorporated by reference” in rules. However, as stated previously, we have revised this AD to specify that AMOCs approved for AD 2014-22-08 are approved for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated December 21, 2015. This service information describes maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations, including updated inspections and intervals, to be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 1,032 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2014-22-08, and retained in this AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2014-22-08 is $85 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $87,720, or $85 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 16, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2014-22-08, Amendment 39-18013 (79 FR 67042, November 12, 2014) (“AD 2014-22-08”).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before December 21, 2015.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent a safety-significant latent failure (that is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-22-08, with new terminating action. Within 30 days after December 17, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-22-08), revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 1, dated June 15, 2012. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the tasks specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, CMR, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2012, is at the applicable time specified in the Record of Revisions of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, CMR, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2012; or within 30 days after December 17, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-22-08), whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-22-08, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, after accomplishing the revisions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated December 21, 2015 (“Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, Revision 03”). The initial compliance time for accomplishing the tasks specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, Revision 03, is at the applicable time specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, Revision 03, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
After the action required by paragraph (i) of this AD has been done, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) 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.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-22-08 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) this AD.
(iii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-22-08, which are included in the FAA AMOC letters specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(iii)(A) and (k)(1)(iii)(B), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD.
(A) FAA AMOC letter ANM-116-17-002R1, dated November 14, 2016.
(B) FAA AMOC letter ANM-116-17-323, dated June 12, 2017.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0092, dated May 13, 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.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on January 16, 2018.
(i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03, dated December 21, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on December 17, 2014 (79 FR 67042, November 12, 2014).
(i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 1, dated June 15, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) 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:
(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-23-10, which applied to all Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2012-23-10 required modifying the affected slide rafts. This AD retains the requirements of AD 2012-23-10. This AD also requires replacing each escape slide pack assembly having a certain part number with a new escape slide pack assembly. This AD was prompted by reports of the escape raft inflation system not deploying when activated due to the rotation of the cable guide in a direction that resulted in jamming of the inflation control cable. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 16, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 16, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of December 31, 2012 (77 FR 70369, November 26, 2012).
For Airbus service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-23-10, Amendment 39-17266 (77 FR 70369, November 26, 2012) (“AD 2012-23-10”). AD 2012-23-10 applied to all Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0043, dated March 4, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Two occurrences were reported on Airbus A320 family aeroplanes where the escape slide raft inflation system did not deploy when activated. This was due to the rotation of the cable guide in a direction, which resulted in jamming of the inflation control cable. Additionally, one case was reported where the system did not deploy properly due to a cracked inflation hose fitting. Investigation conducted by Air Cruisers Company [Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems], the slide raft manufacturer, showed that the hose fitting could be subject to a bending moment, if improperly packed. Consequently, the hose fitting could separate from the reservoir and the inflation of the slide raft would be impaired.
This condition, if not corrected, could delay the evacuation from the aeroplane in case of emergency, possibly resulting in injury to the occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, DGAC France issued AD F-2004-072 [which correlates with FAA AD 2004-26-07, Amendment 39-13919 (70 FR 1176, January 6, 2005)], to introduce an inflation hose retainer preventing an incomplete inflation of emergency escape slides, which could delay passenger evacuation, and EASA issued AD 2011-0160 (later revised twice) to require modification of the affected slide rafts or replacement thereof with modified units.
Since EASA AD 2011-0160R2 [which correlates with FAA AD 2012-23-10 and was issued as a stand-alone, non-superseding AD] was issued, Air Cruisers [Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems] developed a modification of the slide and slide/raft, part of the escape slide pack assemblies, to improve its deployment. Modified slides and slide/rafts are identified by a different Part Number (P/N); consequently, also the escape slide pack assemblies are identified by a different P/N.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD F-2004-072 (EASA approval 2004-5335) and EASA AD 2011-0160R2, which are superseded, and requires installation of modified escape slide pack assemblies.
Appendix 1 of this [EASA] AD provides a comprehensive list of escape slide pack assemblies P/N that, at the issue date of the [EASA] AD, are not approved for further installation on any aeroplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments
United Airlines (UAL) requested that the compliance time in the proposed AD be extended from 36 months to 42 months. UAL stated that this will allow sufficient time to purge the stock and order parts from the supplier.
We disagree with the commenter's request. UAL has not provided suitable rationale to justify that extending the compliance time will ensure the safety of the affected fleet. In developing the appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of this modification. We have determined that 36 months will ensure an acceptable level of safety and provide sufficient time to order parts and accomplish the required modification. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Delta Airlines (DAL) requested an allowance for interchangeable parts. DAL stated that paragraph (l) of the proposed AD specifies the replacement of “old” escape slide packs with corresponding “new” escape slide packs. DAL stated that paragraph (l) of the proposed AD does not allow the replacement of an “old” slide pack with an alternative “new” slide pack that might be fully interchangeable with the one that is mandated. DAL commented that, for example, an airplane with a part number (P/N) D30664-505 slide pack already installed must be replaced with a P/N D30664-705 slide pack. DAL stated that, however, P/N D30664-705 and P/N D30664-709 have incorporated Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-96, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2015, and are fully interchangeable on DAL airplanes. DAL also commented that paragraph (l) of the proposed AD limits operational flexibility for accomplishing the intent of the NPRM.
We disagree with the commenter's request because Airbus has defined the specific configuration of the pack assemblies that mitigate the risk addressed in this AD. We are not aware of any data that substantiates the interchanging of those parts referenced in table 1 to paragraphs (l), (m)(2), (n)(2), and (o)(1) of this AD, except as provided in paragraph (o)(3) of this AD. Operators may request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) supported by appropriate substantiating data, under the provisions of paragraph (q)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
UAL requested that operators be allowed to demonstrate compliance by means of a technical records review for the accomplishment of the related Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems service information.
We contacted UAL to clarify their request. Based on UAL's clarification, we concluded that UAL is requesting the accomplishment of a records review as an acceptable method for demonstrating compliance to the modification of spare parts specified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. We agree with UAL that a records review can be used to verify the modification specified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD has been done as specified in the Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems service information identified in that paragraph. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
UAL stated that it would like to highlight that Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-96, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2015; and Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-97, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2015, are now at Revision 2. UAL also commented that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B82, Revision 01, dated December 10, 2015, is at Revision 2.
We infer that UAL is requesting that we use the latest service information in this AD. We agree with the commenter's request and have revised paragraphs (m)(1)(ii) and (m)(2) of this AD accordingly. We have also revised paragraph (p) of this AD to give credit for previous actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD using earlier versions of the service information.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Airbus has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for replacing certain escape slide pack assemblies. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.
• Service Bulletin A320-25-1B81, Revision 01, dated December 10, 2015.
• Service Bulletin A320-25-1B82, Revision 02, dated July 6, 2017.
• Service Bulletin A320-25-1B83, Revision 01, dated December 10, 2015.
• Service Bulletin A320-25-1B84, Revision 01, dated December 10, 2015.
Zodiac Aerospace has issued Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-96, Revision 2, dated April 29, 2016; and Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-97, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modification of the escape slide pack. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 959 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 16, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2012-23-10, Amendment 39-17266 (77 FR 70369, November 26, 2012) (“AD 2012-23-10”).
This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports of the escape raft inflation system not deploying when activated due to the rotation of the cable guide in a direction which resulted in jamming of the inflation control cable. We are issuing this AD to prevent non-deployment of the escape slide raft, which could result in delayed evacuation from the airplane during an emergency and consequent injury to passengers.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012-23-10, with no changes. Except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD, within 36 months after December 31, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-23-10): Modify the escape slide rafts that have a part number (P/N) specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (j)(1), and (j)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1723, dated December 17, 2010 (for Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1724, dated December 17, 2010 (for Model A318 series airplanes).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2012-23-10, with no changes. Replacement of all affected escape slide rafts on any affected airplane with slide rafts that have been modified in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Air Cruisers Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-85, Revision 2, dated January 3, 2012, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided that prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the modification, the installation of the cable guide assembly is done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Air Cruisers Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-56, dated November 12, 1999.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2012-23-10, with no changes. Before the effective date of this AD: Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 151459 or Modification 151502 has been embodied in production, and on which no escape slide raft replacements have been made since first flight, are not affected by the requirement specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2012-23-10, with no changes.
(1) For airplanes other than those identified in paragraph (i) of this AD: After accomplishment of the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD or after accomplishment of the alternative modification specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an escape slide raft specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (j)(1), and (j)(2) of this AD, unless it has been modified in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1723, dated December 17, 2010 (for Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes); Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1724, dated December 17, 2010 (for Model A318 series airplanes); or Air Cruisers Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-85, Revision 2, dated January 3, 2012 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes), including the installation of the cable guide assembly in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Air Cruisers Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-56, dated November 12, 1999.
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (i) of this AD: As of December 31, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-23-10), no person may install, on any airplane, an escape slide raft specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (j)(1), and (j)(2) of this AD, unless it has been modified in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1723, dated December 17, 2010 (for Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes); Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1724, dated December 17, 2010 (for Model A318 series airplanes); or Air Cruisers Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-85, Revision 2, dated January 3, 2012 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes), including the installation of the cable guide assembly in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Air Cruisers Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-56, dated November 12, 1999.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2012-23-10, with no changes. This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (h) and (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before December 31, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-23-10), using Air Cruisers Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-85, dated November 30, 2010; or Air Cruisers Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-85, Revision 1, dated September 30, 2011; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace each escape slide pack assembly having a part number identified as “old” in table 1 to paragraphs (l), (m)(2), (n)(2), and (o)(1) of this AD, with a new escape slide pack assembly having the corresponding part number identified as “new” in table 1 to paragraphs (l), (m)(2), (n)(2), and (o)(1) of this AD, 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).
(1) Modification of an airplane in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (m)(1)(i) through (m)(1)(iv) of this AD, as applicable to the airplane model and escape slide pack assembly part number, is an acceptable method of compliance with the requirements of paragraph (l) of this AD for that airplane.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B81, Revision 01, dated December 10, 2015 (for airplanes equipped with slide/rafts having P/Ns D30664-405, D30664-407, D30664-409, D30664-505, D30664-507, D30664-509, D30664-511, D30665-405, D30665-407, D30665-409, D30665-505, D30665-507, D30665-509, and D30665-511).
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B82, Revision 02, dated July 6, 2017 (for airplanes equipped with slides having P/Ns D31516-121, D31516-125, D31516-317, D31516-417, D31516-525, D31517-121, D31517-125, D31517-317, D31517-417, and D31517-525).
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B83, Revision 01, dated December 10, 2015 (for airplanes equipped with slides with re-entry line P/Ns D31516-119, D31516-123, D31516-519, D31516-523, D31516-315, D31516-415, D31517-119, D31517-123, D31517-519, D31517-523, D31517-315, and D31517-415).
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B84, Revision 01, dated December 10, 2015 (for airplanes equipped with slides with Dual Fastener P/N D31516-521 and D31517-521).
(2) An escape slide pack assembly not installed on an airplane and having a part number identified as “old” in table 1 to paragraphs (l), (m)(2), (n)(2), and (o)(1) of this AD may be modified to the corresponding part number identified as “new” in table 1 to paragraphs (l), (m)(2), (n)(2), and (o)(1) of this AD, in accordance with Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-96, Revision 2, dated April 29, 2016; and Zodiac Aero Evacuations Systems Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-97, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2016; as applicable.
(1) An airplane on which Airbus Modification 151459 or Modification 151502 has been embodied in production is not affected by the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided it is determined that no escape slide pack assembly having a part number specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (n) and (o)(2) of this AD, figure 3 to paragraphs (n) and (o)(2) of this AD, or figure 4 to paragraphs (n) and (o)(2) of this AD, is installed on that airplane as of the effective date of this AD.
(2) An airplane on which Airbus Modification 156766, Modification 156767, Modification 156768, Modification 156769, or Modification 156770 has been embodied in production is not affected by the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (l) of this AD, provided that it is determined that no escape slide raft having a part number identified in figure 2 to paragraphs (n) and (o)(2) of this AD, figure 3 to paragraphs (n) and (o)(2) of this AD, or figure 4 to paragraphs (n) and (o)(2) of this AD, or having a part number identified as “old” in table 1 to paragraphs (l), (m)(2), (n)(2), and (o)(1) of this AD, is installed on that airplane as of the effective date of this AD.
(1) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install on any airplane an escape slide pack assembly having a part number identified as “old” in table 1 to paragraphs (l), (m)(2), (n)(2), and (o)(1) of this AD.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install on any airplane an escape slide pack assembly having a part number identified in figure 2 to paragraphs (n) and (o)(2) of this AD, figure 3 to paragraphs (n) and (o)(2) of this AD, and figure 4 to paragraphs (n) and (o)(2) of this AD.
(3) Installation of an escape slide pack assembly having a part number approved after March 18, 2016 (the effective date of EASA AD 2016-0043), constitutes compliance with the requirements of paragraph (l) of this AD, provided the conditions as specified in paragraphs (o)(3)(i) and (o)(3)(ii) of this AD are met.
(i) The part number must be approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA; and
(ii) The installation must be accomplished in accordance with airplane modification instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information in paragraphs (p)(1)(i) through (p)(1)(v) of this AD.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B81, dated August 13, 2015.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B82, dated August 13, 2015.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B82, Revision 01, dated December 10, 2015.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B83, dated July 31, 2015.
(v) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B84, dated July 31, 2015.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (m)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information in paragraphs (p)(2)(i) through (p)(2)(iv) of this AD.
(i) Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-96, dated July 9, 2015;
(ii) Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-96, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2015.
(iii) Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-97, dated July 9, 2015.
(iv) Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-97, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0043, dated March 4, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425- 227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (s)(5) and (s)(6) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on January 16, 2018.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B81, Revision 01, dated December 10, 2015.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B82, Revision 02, dated July 6, 2017.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B83, Revision 01, dated December 10, 2015.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B84, Revision 01, dated December 10, 2015.
(v) Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-96, Revision 2, dated April 29, 2016.
(vi) Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-97, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2016.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 70369, November 26, 2012).
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1723, dated December 17, 2010.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1724, dated December 17, 2010.
(iii) Air Cruisers Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-85, Revision 2, dated January 3, 2012.
(iv) Air Cruisers Service Bulletin S.B. A320 004-25-56, dated November 12, 1999.
(5) 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
(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-24-08 for all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-C-37 turbofan engines with certain low-pressure (LP) fuel filter-to-high-pressure (HP) fuel pump tube assemblies, or HP fuel pump-to-fuel flow governor (FFG) or FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assemblies and flanged adaptor, installed. AD 2014-24-08 required replacing certain LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube assemblies. This AD retains the requirement in AD 2014-24-08 to remove the LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube, adds new compliance thresholds, and requires installation of new HP fuel pump-to-FFG and FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assemblies and flanged adaptor. This AD was prompted by fuel leaks that have occurred at the flanged joints of the HP fuel pump-to-FFG tube assembly and FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assembly. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 16, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-24-08, Amendment 39-18041 (79 FR 71308, December 2, 2014), “AD 2014-24-08,” for all RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-C-37 turbofan engines. AD 2014-24-08 applied to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received.
American Airlines (AAL) and FedEx Express stated the proposed AD would prohibit reinstallation of earlier HP fuel pump to FFG and FFG to HP pump inlet overspill return tube assemblies. AAL and FedEx Express request clarification that the HP fuel tube does not require replacement if removed simply to gain access to other components.
FedEx is concerned that the current wording would result in serviceable tube assemblies having to be replaced in a line environment when components such as the FFG or fuel pump are replaced as part of fuel system troubleshooting. AAL didn't justify their request.
We agree. This AD requires replacement of the affected parts before they exceed 4,750 engine flight cycles (FC) or 15,000 flight hours (FH), or at a shop visit, whichever occurs first. To address this comment, we deleted the Installations Prohibition paragraph and integrated the previous restrictions into paragraph (h), Definitions, adding the statement that “The reinstallation of affected parts, removed to facilitate on-wing/in-service maintenance of adjacent components, is acceptable within the limits prescribed by paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD.”
AAL and UPS requested clarification of shop visit. They would like to clarify the shop visit definition as, “For the purpose of this AD, a shop visit is defined as the separation of major mating module flanges to perform maintenance or overhaul, excluding the removal or replacement of the high speed gearbox, or for the sole purpose of transporting the engine without performing subsequent maintenance or overhaul.” They gave no justification for the requested change.
We disagree. The shop visit definition is intended to require the replacement of parts when the engine is in a shop for maintenance or overhaul with no exceptions, consistent with the associated service bulletin. We did not change this AD.
UPS stated the proposed AD requires incorporation of Service Bulletins (SBs) RB.211-73-H131, Revision 1 and RB.211-73-G230, Revision 3. UPS requests this AD give credit for previous incorporation of any prior revision of these two service bulletins.
We agree. Corrective action done prior to the effective date of this AD using earlier revisions of the cited service bulletins is acceptable. We added a new section Credit for Previous Actions after paragraph (h) of this AD.
UPS requested that the pre-SB RB.211-73-H131 part numbers be listed in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, to clarify only pre-SB RB.73-H131 engines are affected.
We agree. We revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
UPS stated the proposed AD section (g)(1) requires incorporation of SB RB.211-73-H131 before the LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube exceeds 4,750 FC or 15,000 FH. These time and cycle limits appear to have originated with SB RB.211-73-E355, which UPS has previously interpreted as “soft limits” rather than “hard limits” due to the verbiage used in the SB. UPS requests the final rule include a drawdown period of 400 cycles/800 hours to allow time for operators to incorporate these modifications on those engines which already exceed the stated thresholds. UPS justified the request to prevent operational disruptions. RR has reviewed the original technical justification for introducing the life limits and modifications. Given the lives of the UPS fleet, a 400 flight cycle extension does not have an appreciable effect on engine safety. The dual engine in-flight shut down rate remains below the continued airworthiness threshold.
We agree. A RR review supports the requested drawdown plan. We revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
UPS requests that the compliance thresholds be listed as (engine or part) hours/cycles since new or since last accomplishment of SB RB.211-73-E355, whichever is sooner. They state that SB RB.211-73-E355 installs a new LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube.
We partially agree. We agree that time since accomplishing SB RB.211-73-E355 is equivalent to time since new for the replaced part. We disagree that the compliance thresholds need to be changed as this AD already specifies compliance before “the part exceeds 4,750 engine flight cycles (FC) or 15,000 flight hours (FH), since new”. We did not change this AD.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Rolls-Royce plc has issued SB RB.211-73-G230, Revision 3, dated April 8, 2016. The SB describes a modification (mod 73-G230) and introduces new HP fuel pump-to-FFG and FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assemblies with a larger O-ring groove on the end adaptor sealing face. RR has also issued SB RB.211-73-H131, Revision 1, dated September 2, 2014. The SB introduces a new LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube assembly. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 100 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, 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 part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 16, 2018.
This AD supersedes AD 2014-24-08, Amendment 39-18041 (79 FR 71308, December 2, 2014).
This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-C-37 turbofan engines with low-pressure (LP) fuel filter-to-high-pressure (HP) fuel pump tube assembly, part number (P/N) UL16692, AE709623-1, 163521538, or 163521545, installed; or HP fuel pump-to-fuel flow governor (FFG), P/N UL16691 or UL37214, installed; or FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assemblies, P/N UL16690 or UL37213, installed; or flanged adaptor, P/N UL37218, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7321, Fuel Control/Turbine Engines.
This AD was prompted by reports of fuel leaks that have resulted in engine in-flight shutdowns. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of fuel supply to the engine, which could lead to the in-flight shutdown of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Remove LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube assembly, P/N UL16692, AE709623-1, 163521538, and 163521545, and replace with a part eligible for installation, at the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) or (ii) of this AD, whichever occurs first, using the Accomplishment Instructions of RR Service Bulletin (SB) RB.211-73-H131, Revision 1, dated September 2, 2014.
(i) At the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD, or
(ii) at the later of the following:
(A) Before the part exceeds 4,750 engine flight cycles (FC) or 15,000 flight hours (FH), since new, whichever occurs first, or
(B) Within 400 FC or 800 FH, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For affected engines with an HP fuel pump-to-FFG tube assembly or FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assembly, or flanged adaptor, installed, replace the parts concurrent with the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if applicable, or during the next shop visit, using the Accomplishment Instructions of RR SB RB.211-73-G230, Revision 3, dated April 8, 2016.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, a part eligible for installation excludes the following: LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube assembly, P/N UL16692, AE709623-1, 163521538, or 163521545; HP fuel pump-to-FFG tube assembly, P/N UL16691 or UL37214; or FFG-to-HP pump inlet overspill return tube assembly, P/N UL16690 or UL37213; or flanged adaptor, P/N UL37218. The reinstallation of affected parts, removed to facilitate on-wing/in-service maintenance of adjacent components is acceptable within the limits prescribed by paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD.
(2) For the purpose of this AD, a shop visit is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance or overhaul.
You may take credit for the corrective action required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD, if you performed these actions before the effective date of this AD using RR Alert NMSB RB.211-73-H131, original issue, dated May 10, 2013 or RR Alert NMSB RB.211-73-G230, Revision 2, dated December 20, 2012, respectively.
(1) The Manager, ECO 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 ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. You may email your request 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2017-0006, dated January 10, 2017, and EASA AD 2014-0123, dated May 15, 2014, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Service Bulletin (SB) RB.211-73-H131, Revision 1, dated September 2, 2014.
(ii) RR SB RB.211-73-G230, Revision 3, dated April 8, 2016.
(3) For RR service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of a vertical strut penetrating through the cabin floor during an emergency water landing and on airframe ground contact at certain speeds/accelerations. This AD requires modification of the fuselage structure at a certain frame. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 16, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 16, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office-EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0212, dated October 25, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
In service occurrences were reported where, as a consequence [during an emergency water landing and] of an airframe ground contact above certified vertical speed/vertical acceleration, the vertical strut at Frame (FR) 65 penetrated through the cabin floor.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to injury of occupants and/or delays during emergency evacuation.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed mod 153724, a structural change which prevents the central vertical strut at FR65 to pass through the cabin floor, and issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1262 to provide instructions for installation of this modification on aeroplanes in service. After SB A320-53-1262 was issued, incorrect MSN [manufacturer serial number] allocations and configuration definitions were identified in it. Consequently Airbus revised that SB, and in addition issued SB A320-53-1333 and SB A320-53-1334.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the fuselage structure at FR65.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
United Airlines (UAL) requested that we include an exception to allow the use of a different foam tape that better meets the needs of its fleet. UAL mentioned that the purpose of the tape is to reduce vibration and prevent chafing from the floor panels, and that the location is considered a “wet” area of the aft cabin that is susceptible to corrosion. UAL also stated that the tape specified does not meet its corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) standards, and that the tape can retain moisture and may not adequately seal between the floor panel and floor support structure. UAL indicated that protecting the floor beams from moisture ingress has been an ongoing effort on its fleet through the CPCP committee and that due to corrosion reports UAL uses a different foam tape on all floor support structure in the cabin “wet” areas. UAL pointed out that it has benefited from superior corrosion protection due to using the different foam tape and stressed its continual commitment to monitoring and evaluating new products and procedures for the aft cabin “wet” areas.
UAL also requested that we provide an exception to the “RC” (Required for Compliance) specification associated with installation of the foam tape.
We agree to include an exception for the reasons provided. We have added paragraph (h), “Service Information Exceptions,” to this AD and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. In paragraph (h)(1) of this
UAL also requested that we provide an exception to the “RC” specification associated with installation of the placard. UAL concurred with marking of modification areas to prevent de-modification, but uses a different method (marking AD areas when there is high risk of de-modification, and denoting the applicable Engineering Authorization and/or AD). UAL stated that marking the modification area in accordance with the service information does not bring awareness to technicians and that the service information may not be readily available for reference. Additionally, UAL pointed out that because the modification is a complex alteration which cannot be easily returned to the original configuration, it considers the modification to be low risk of de-modification. UAL also pointed out that Airbus has identified illustrated parts catalog (IPC) and structural repair manual (SRM) publications affected in the specified service information and that the IPC changes will identify the proper configuration between pre- and post-modification accomplishment. UAL mentioned that excepting the placard marking on FR65 from the “RC” requirement will allow operators (if they choose) to mark their applicable Engineering Authorization and/or AD instead and that applying the placard does not affect the technical intent of the modification.
We agree to include an exception for the reasons provided. In paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, we added an exception to specify that the referenced placard installation is not required by this AD.
American Airlines (AAL) requested that we delay issuance of the final rule until the manufacturer can release Revision 02 (we referred to Revision 01 in the NPRM) of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262. AAL pointed out that Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262 is expected to address certain discrepancies found during validation of the service information. UAL also requested that we verify that the required service information specified in the NPRM is at the latest revision level to prevent alternative method of compliance (AMOC) requests immediately following publication of the final rule.
We have verified that the required service information specified in this AD is at the latest revision level. We do not consider that delaying this action until release of the planned service information is warranted, since Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262 is not yet approved and we cannot allow future revisions of service information in this AD. Additionally, AAL did not provide any further details associated with the discrepancies discovered during validation. We have determined that using Revision 01 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262 adequately addresses the identified unsafe condition. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an AMOC to allow the use of Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262 after issuance of the updated service information. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Airbus has issued the following Airbus service information:
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, Revision 01, dated July 29, 2016;
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1333, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated July 29, 2016; and
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1334, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated July 29, 2016.
The service information describes procedures for modifying the fuselage structure at FR65. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 1,123 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 16, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus Modification 153724 was embodied in production.
(1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of a vertical strut penetrating through the cabin floor during an emergency water landing and on airframe ground contact at certain speeds/accelerations. We are issuing this AD to prevent the central vertical strut at frame (FR) 65 from penetrating through the cabin floor in certain conditions, which could lead to injury of occupants and delays during an emergency evacuation.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the fuselage structure at FR65, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD.
(1) For Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes, as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262, Revision 01, dated July 29, 2016: Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, Revision 01, dated July 29, 2016.
(2) For Model A320-211, -212, -214, -232, and -233 airplanes, as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1333, dated July 29, 2016: Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1333, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated July 29, 2016.
(3) For Model A321-211, -213, and -231 airplanes as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1334, dated July 29, 2016: Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1334, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated July 29, 2016.
(1) Where the service bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD specifies to use ABS5006 foam tape on the new floor support beam, this AD allows the installation of an alternative foam tape, in accordance with 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.
(2) Where the service bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD specifies to install a placard at FR65, that placard installation is not required by this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0212, dated October 25, 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.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, Revision 01, dated July 29, 2016.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1333, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated July 29, 2016.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1334, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated July 29, 2016.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office-EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, at Vancouver, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate replacement gears, shafts and bearings. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during maintenance activities.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on December 19, 2017 to 7 p.m. on December 21, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-1072 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
BNSF requested that the BNSF Swing Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, remain closed to marine vessel traffic to install new swing gears, shafts and bearings. During this installation period, the swing span of the bridge will be in the closed-to-navigation position; however, the span may be opened for maritime emergencies, when an hour's notice has been given, but any emergency opening will necessitate a time extension to the approved dates. The BNSF Swing Bridge, mile 105.6, provides 39 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed position.
The subject bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5. This deviation allows the swing span of the BNSF Railway Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on December 19, 2017, and 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on December 21, 2017. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.5 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of the Columbia River includes vessels ranging from large ships to commercial tug and tow vessels to recreational pleasure craft including cabin cruisers and sailing vessels. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, if an hour's notice is given, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters on the Lower Mississippi River above Head of Passes between mile marker (MM) 94.0 and MM 95.0. This safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with a fireworks display on January 6, 2018. This rulemaking will prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on January 6, 2018.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2017-0986. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Howard K. Vacco, Sector New Orleans, Waterways Management Division Chief, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-365-2281, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by January 6, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide responsible comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life and vessels transiting the area where the fireworks will be launched. The fireworks display is scheduled to take place from 8:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on January 6, 2018, in the navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River at New Orleans, LA.
The COTP will establish a safety zone from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on January 6, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River above Head of Passes between mile marker 94.0 and mile marker 95.0 in New Orleans, LA. The duration of the safety zone is to ensure the protection of personnel, vessels and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This safety zone will restrict vessel traffic from entering or transiting within a one mile area of navigable waterway of the Lower Mississippi River above Head of Passes between mile marker 94.0 and mile marker 95.0 in New Orleans, LA, during a time of year when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour on one mile of navigable waters between mile marker (MM) 94.0 and MM 95.0 of the Lower Mississippi River. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67.
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the October 13, 2017, direct final rule that would have approved changes to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) State Implementation Plan (SIP) to revise Florida's requirements and procedures for emissions monitoring at stationary sources. EPA will address the comment in a separate final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action, also published on October 13, 2017.
The direct final rule published at 82 FR 47636, on October 13, 2017, is withdrawn effective December 11, 2017.
Andres Febres, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Febres can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-8966 or via electronic mail at
On October 13, 2017 (82 FR 47636), EPA published a direct final rule approving a portion of a SIP revision submitted by the State of Florida, through FDEP on February 1, 2017, for the purpose of revising Florida's requirements and procedures for emissions monitoring at stationary sources. Florida's February 1, 2017, SIP submittal included amendments to three Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) rule sections, as well as the removal of one F.A.C. rule section from the Florida SIP in order to eliminate redundant language and make updates to the requirements for emissions monitoring at stationary sources. Additionally, the October 13, 2017, direct final rule included a correction to remove an additional F.A.C. rule that was previously approved for removal from the SIP in a separate action but was never removed.
In the direct final rule, EPA explained that the Agency was publishing the rule without prior proposal because the Agency viewed the submittal as a non-controversial SIP amendment and anticipated no adverse comments. Further, EPA explained that the Agency was publishing a separate document in the proposed rules section of the
EPA received one adverse comment from a single Commenter on the aforementioned changes. EPA will address the comment in a separate final action based on the proposed action also published on October 13, 2017 (82 FR 47662). In addition, because information in the docket was not fully accessible to the public during the initial comment period, in a separate action EPA will reopen the comment period for the proposed rule.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a May 26, 2016, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from Minnesota that is intended to demonstrate that the Minnesota SIP meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving this SIP as containing adequate provisions to ensure that Minnesota emissions do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. The proposed rulemaking associated with this final action was published on July 17, 2017, and EPA received no comments during the comment period, which ended on August 16, 2017.
This final rule is effective on January 10, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0327. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-4489,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable “infrastructure” elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain “good neighbor” provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action addresses the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These sub-elements require that each SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will “contribute significantly to nonattainment” or “interfere with maintenance” of the applicable air quality standard in any other state.
On May 26, 2016, the State of Minnesota submitted a revision to its SIP to address the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Specifically, Minnesota's submission asserts that the state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will “contribute significantly to nonattainment” or “interfere with maintenance” of the 2008 ozone standard in any other state. The SIP submission highlights rules and statutes already in Minnesota's SIP that limit emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
EPA developed technical information and a related analysis to assist states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and used this technical analysis to support the CSAPR Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (“CSAPR Update”).
On July 17, 2017 (82 FR 32673), EPA published a rule proposing to approve Minnesota's interstate transport SIP for purposes of meeting the CAA section
EPA is approving Minnesota's interstate transport SIP for purposes of meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements of the 2008 ozone standard.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 9, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to find that three states have failed to submit timely revisions to their state implementation plans (SIPs) as required to satisfy certain requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for implementation of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (2008 ozone NAAQS). These findings of failure to submit apply to states with overdue SIP revisions (or attainment plans) for nonattainment areas reclassified from “Marginal” to “Moderate” in May 2016 because the areas failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the Marginal area attainment date of July 20, 2015. The SIP revisions to address all applicable Moderate area attainment plan requirements for these areas were due on January 1, 2017. This action requires the affected states to timely submit a SIP revision consistent with the requirements of the CAA and the EPA regulations. If a state fails to make the required timely SIP submittal, or if a submitted SIP is incomplete, the CAA requires the imposition of sanctions for the affected area(s). In addition, the EPA is obligated to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) to address any outstanding SIP requirements if a state does not submit, and the EPA does not approve, a state's submittal within 24 months of the effective date of these findings.
The effective date of this action is January 10, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0667. All documents in the docket are listed and publicly available at
Ms. Virginia Raps, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: C539-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; by telephone (919) 541-4383; or by email at
Section 553 of the APA
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action will be posted at
For questions related to specific states mentioned in this notice, please contact the appropriate EPA Regional office:
On March 27, 2008, the EPA issued its final rule to revise the ozone NAAQS establishing new 8-hour standards to provide the necessary protection of public health and welfare.
Promulgation of a revised NAAQS triggers a requirement for the EPA to designate areas of the country as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for the standards. For any revised ozone NAAQS, the EPA must classify each nonattainment area based on the severity of the ozone levels.
On May 21, 2012, and June 11, 2012, the EPA issued rules designating 46 areas throughout the country as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (both rules were effective July 20, 2012), and establishing classifications for the designated nonattainment areas.
Ozone nonattainment areas of lower classifications have fewer and less stringent mandatory air quality planning and control requirements than those of higher classifications. For a Marginal area, a state is required to provide a baseline emissions inventory, adopt regulations to receive emissions statements from major stationary sources, and implement a nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) program for the relevant ozone standard.
On March 6, 2015, the EPA established a final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule).
The attainment date for the 36 nonattainment areas initially classified as Marginal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS was July 20, 2015. On May 4, 2016, the EPA determined that for 11 of these areas, states failed to attain the standard by the attainment date and did not qualify for a 1-year attainment date extension. By operation of law, such areas were reclassified to Moderate. In the same action, the EPA established January 1, 2017, as the deadline for states to submit Moderate area attainment plans for those reclassified areas and for implementing RACT.
For plan requirements under subpart D, title I of the CAA, such as those for ozone nonattainment areas, if the EPA finds that a state has failed to make the required SIP submittal or that a submitted SIP is incomplete, then CAA section 179 establishes specific consequences, including the eventual imposition of mandatory sanctions for the affected area(s).
If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that a state has submitted a complete SIP addressing the deficiency that is the basis for these findings within 18 months of the effective date of this rulemaking, or the submittal has not become complete by operation of law 6 months after submittal, then pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply in the affected nonattainment area. If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that the state has submitted a complete SIP addressing the deficiencies that are the basis for these findings within 6 months after the offset sanction is imposed, or the submittal has not become complete by operation of law 6 months after submittal, then the highway funding sanction will apply in the affected nonattainment area, in accordance with CAA section 179(b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.31. The state must make the required SIP submittal and the EPA must take final action to approve the submittal within 2 years of the effective date of these findings; otherwise, the EPA is required to promulgate a FIP. This is required pursuant to CAA section 110(c), for the affected nonattainment area.
Based on a review of SIP submittals received as of the date of this final action, the EPA is finding that the states listed in Table 1 have failed to submit specific SIP elements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS required under subpart 2 of part D of title 1 of the CAA.
The EPA believes that the human health or environmental risks addressed by this action will not have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. This is because it does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or environment under the ozone NAAQS. The purpose of this rule is to make findings that three states have failed to provide the EPA with the identified SIP submissions, which are required by the CAA for purposes of implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As such, this action does not directly affect the level of protection provided for human health or the environment. Moreover, it is intended that the actions and deadlines resulting from this notice will lead to greater protection for United States citizens, including minority, low-income, or indigenous populations by ensuring that states meet their statutory obligation to develop and submit SIPs to ensure that areas make progress toward attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA. This final rule does not establish any new information collection requirement apart from what is already required by law. This rule relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs under sections 172 and 182 which address the statutory requirements that apply to areas designated as Moderate nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS.
I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The rule is a finding that the named states have not submitted the necessary SIP revisions.
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. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule finds that several states have failed to submit SIP revisions that satisfy the nonattainment area planning requirements under sections 172 and 182 of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. No tribe is subject to the requirement to submit an implementation plan under section 172, or under subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is a finding that several states have failed to submit SIP revisions that satisfy the Moderate nonattainment area planning requirements under sections 172 and 182 of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and does not directly or disproportionately affect children.
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 believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. In finding that several states have failed to submit SIP revisions that satisfy the Moderate nonattainment area planning requirements under sections 172 and 182 of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, this action does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The results of this evaluation are contained in Section V of this preamble titled “Environmental Justice Considerations.”
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Section 307(b)(l) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final agency actions by the EPA under the CAA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, (i) when the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”
The EPA has determined that this final rule consisting of findings of failure to submit certain of the required SIP revisions is “nationally applicable” within the meaning of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA. This final agency action affects three states with Moderate nonattainment areas located in three of the ten EPA Regional offices, and in
In addition, the EPA has determined that this rule has nationwide scope or effect because it addresses a common core of knowledge and analysis involved in formulating the decision and a common interpretation of the requirements of 40 CFR 51 appendix V applied to determining the completeness of SIPs in states across the country. This determination is appropriate because, in the 1977 CAA Amendments that revised CAA section 307(b)(l), Congress noted that the Administrator's determination that an action is of “nationwide scope or effect” would be appropriate for any action that has “scope or effect beyond a single judicial circuit.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323-324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope and effect of this action extends to the three judicial circuits that include the states across the country affected by this action. In these circumstances, CAA section 307(b)(1) and its legislative history authorize the Administrator to find the rule to be of “nationwide scope or effect” and, thus, to indicate that venue for challenges lies in the District of Columbia Circuit. Accordingly, the EPA is determining that this rule is of nationwide scope or effect.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this final action is published in the
Environmental protection, Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Administrative practice and procedures, Incorporation by reference, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to modify the use conditions required for use of three flammable refrigerants, isobutane (R-600a), propane (R-290), and R-441A, in new household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The use conditions, which address safe use of flammable refrigerants, are being revised to reflect the incorporation by reference of an updated standard from Underwriters Laboratories.
This rule is effective on March 12, 2018 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by January 25, 2018. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0472. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Chenise Farquharson, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6205T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-7768; email address:
We are modifying the use conditions for three flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants, isobutane (R-600a), propane (R-290), and R-441A, used in new household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers (hereafter “household refrigerators and freezers”) by replacing four of the five use conditions in our previous hydrocarbon refrigerants rules (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015) with the updated Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 60335-2-24 (2nd edition, April 28, 2017), “Household and Similar Electrical Appliances—Safety—Part 2-24: Particular Requirements for Refrigerating Appliances, Ice-Cream Appliances and Ice-Makers.” See EPA's two previous rules (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015) for information on the SNAP program and the use conditions for isobutane, propane, and R-441A. UL Standard 60335-2-24 supersedes the current edition of UL Standard 250 (10th edition, August 25, 2000), “Household Refrigerators and Freezers,” which EPA previously incorporated by reference in the use conditions of the acceptability listings for these three refrigerants (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015). This action applies to new refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerator and freezers manufactured after the effective date of this regulation. This action does not place any significant burden on the regulated community and ensures consistency with standard industry practices.
EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and
If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
If requested by the date specified in the
You may claim that information in your comments is CBI, as allowed by 40 CFR part 2. If you submit comments and include information that you claim as CBI, we request that you submit them directly to Chenise Farquharson at the address under
This final rule regulates the use of three flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants, isobutane, propane, and the hydrocarbon blend R-441A, in new household refrigerators and freezers. Table 1 identifies industry subsectors that may wish to explore the use of these flammable refrigerants in this end-use or that may work with equipment using these refrigerants in the future. Regulated entities may include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 82. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
Household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers are intended primarily for residential use, although they may be used outside the home (
The 2014 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Handbook of Refrigeration provides an overview of food preservation in regards to household refrigerators and freezers. Generally, a storage temperature between 32 and 39 °F (0 to 3.9 °C) is desirable for preserving fresh food.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ASHRAE Standard 34-2016 assigns a safety group classification for each refrigerant which consists of two alphanumeric characters (
The flammability classification “1” is given to refrigerants that, when tested, show no flame propagation. The flammability classification “2” is given to refrigerants that, when tested, exhibit flame propagation, have a heat of combustion less than 19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 British thermal units (BTU)/lb), and have a lower flammability limit (LFL) greater than 0.10 kg/m
EPA previously found isobutane, propane, and R-441A acceptable, subject to use conditions, in new household refrigerators and freezers. In the proposed and final rules, EPA provided information on the environmental and health properties of the three refrigerants and the various substitutes available for use in household refrigerators and freezers. Additionally, EPA's risk screens for the three refrigerants are available in the docket for these rulemakings (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0286 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748).
Isobutane, propane, and R-441A have an ASHRAE classification of A3, indicating that they have low toxicity and high flammability. The flammability risks are of concern because household refrigerators and freezers have traditionally used refrigerants that are not flammable. In the presence of an ignition source (
To address flammability, EPA listed the refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in new household refrigerators and freezers. The use conditions address safe use of flammable refrigerants and include incorporation by reference of Supplement SA to UL Standard 250, refrigerant charge size limits, and requirements for markings on equipment using the refrigerants to inform consumers and technicians of potential flammability hazards. Without appropriate use conditions, the flammability risk posed by the refrigerants could be higher than non-flammable refrigerants because
The use conditions required the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a. “DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use Mechanical Devices To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.” This marking must be provided on or near any evaporators that can be contacted by the consumer.
b. “DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.” This marking must be located near the machine compartment.
c. “CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner's Guide Before Attempting To Service This Product. All Safety Precautions Must be Followed.” This marking must be located near the machine compartment.
d. “CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Dispose of Properly In Accordance With Federal Or Local Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant Used.” This marking must be provided on the exterior of the refrigeration equipment.
e. “CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion Due To Puncture Of Refrigerant Tubing; Follow Handling Instructions Carefully. Flammable Refrigerant Used.” This marking must be provided near all exposed refrigerant tubing.
f. All of these markings must be in letters no less than 6.4 mm (
UL first established Standard 60335-2-24 on August 21, 2006, to address the safety of household and similar electrical appliances that use flammable refrigerants. Specifically, the standard applies to the safety of refrigerating appliances for household and similar use, ice-makers incorporating a motor-compressor and ice-makers intended to be incorporated in frozen food storage compartments, and refrigerating appliances and ice-makers for use in camping, touring caravans and boats for leisure purposes. In response to industry's interest to reconsider the use of flammable refrigerants in refrigeration and air conditioning (AC) equipment and at larger charge sizes, UL formed a Joint Task Group (JTG) comprised of members of its Standards Technical Panel (STP) in 2011. The JTG was tasked with developing recommendations for addressing the use and safety of refrigerants classified as A2, A2L, and A3.
One of the outcomes of the work of the JTG is the revised UL Standard 60335-2-24, which is based on International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 60335-2-24 “Household and Similar Electrical Appliances—Safety—Part 2-24: Particular Requirements for Refrigerating Appliances, Ice-Cream Appliances and Ice-Makers” (edition 7.1, May 2012). The revised UL Standard 60335-2-24 was developed in an open and consensus-based approach, with the assistance of experts in the refrigeration and AC industry as well as experts involved in assessing the safety of products. The revision cycle, including final recirculation, concluded on February 6, 2017, and UL published the updated standard on April 28, 2017. The 2017 standard supersedes the previous edition published in August 2006, and also replaces the current edition of UL Standard 250 (10th edition, August 2000).
The revised UL Standard 60335-2-24 establishes requirements for the evaluation of household and similar electrical appliances and the safe use of refrigerants with a flammability classification of A2, A2L, or A3. The charge size limit for each separate refrigerant circuit (
In this direct final rule, EPA is replacing the reference to the 2000 UL Standard 250 in use condition “2” with the updated 2017 UL Standard 60335-2-24 “Safety Requirements for
1.
2.
EPA previously required a charge size limit of 57 grams (2.01 ounces) for each separate refrigerant circuit in a refrigerator or freezer in use condition “3.” In this action, EPA is removing use condition “3.” To comply with UL Standard 60335-2-24, the maximum charge size for each separate refrigerant circuit in a refrigerator or freezer would need to be 150 grams (5.29 ounces), consistent with UL Standard 60335-2-24.
EPA evaluated reasonable worst-case and more typical, yet conservative, scenarios to model the effects of the sudden release of each refrigerant from a household refrigerator or freezer containing the maximum charge size of 150 grams (5.29 ounces). This was done to determine whether the refrigerants would present flammability or toxicity concerns for consumers or workers, including those servicing or disposing of appliances. To represent a reasonable worst-case scenario, it was assumed that a catastrophic leak of each refrigerant would occur while the refrigerator or freezer unit is located in a residential kitchen with a height of approximately 2.4 meters (
EPA's analysis for each of the refrigerants revealed that even if the unit's full charge were emitted within one minute, the concentration would not reach the LFL for that refrigerant in the less conservative 53 m
Concerning toxicity of the refrigerants, our risk screens find that the 30-minute acute exposure guideline level (AEGL) (
UL Standard 60335-2-24 includes requirements for red PMS #185 marked pipes, hoses, and other devices through which the refrigerant passes, and requirements for markings in letters no less than 6.4 mm (
Through this action EPA is incorporating by reference UL Standard 60335-2-24, “Safety Requirements for Household and Similar Electrical Appliances, Part 2: Particular Requirements for Refrigerating Appliances, Ice-Cream Appliances and Ice-Makers” (2nd edition, April 2017), which establishes requirements for the evaluation of household and similar electrical appliances, and safe use of flammable refrigerants. This approach is the same as that used to incorporate Supplement SA to UL 250 10th edition in our previous rules on flammable refrigerants (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015).
The UL standard is available for purchase by mail at: COMM 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106; Email:
The use conditions in this rule apply to new household refrigerators and freezers manufactured after the effective date of this regulation. New household refrigerators and freezers manufactured and used with isobutane on or after January 19, 2012, or such equipment manufactured and used with propane or R-441A on or after May 10, 2015, was required to meet the requirements of the earlier use conditions of the December 20, 2011 and April 10, 2015 final rules, including compliance with UL 250 (10th edition, August 25, 2000), “Household Refrigerators and Freezers.” This rule does not apply to or affect equipment manufactured before the effective date of this rule and which was manufactured in compliance with the SNAP requirements applicable at the time of manufacture.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0226. This rule contains no new requirements for reporting or recordkeeping.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule.
The use conditions of this rule apply to manufacturers of new household refrigerators and freezers, that choose to use flammable refrigerants. This action allows equipment manufacturers to use flammable refrigerants at a higher charge size than previously allowed in new household refrigerators and freezers but does not mandate such use; the change to the use conditions allows more flexibility for manufacturers in the design of equipment and thus reduces the regulatory burden to the regulated community. In some cases, it may reduce costs by allowing manufacturers to design equipment with a single, larger refrigerant circuit instead of multiple, smaller refrigerant circuits for the same piece of equipment.
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. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in risk screens for the various substitutes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.
This action involves a technical standard. EPA is revising the use conditions for the household refrigerators and freezers end-use by incorporating by reference the UL Standard 60335-2-24, “Safety Requirements for Household and Similar Electrical Appliances, Part 2: Particular Requirements for Refrigerating Appliances, Ice-Cream Appliances and Ice-Makers” (2nd edition, April 2017), which establishes requirements for the evaluation of household and similar electrical appliances, and safe use of flammable refrigerants. UL Standard 60335-2-24
The human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action's health and environmental risk assessments are contained in the risk screens for the various substitutes. The risk screens are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Unless specified otherwise, all documents are available electronically through the Federal Docket Management System, Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0472.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
The revisions and additions to read as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Final specifications.
In this final rule, NMFS specifies annual catch limits (ACLs) for Pacific Island crustacean, precious coral, and territorial bottomfish fisheries, and accountability measures (AMs) to correct or mitigate any overages of catch limits. The ACLs and AMs will be effective for fishing year 2017. Although the 2017 fishing year has nearly ended for most stocks, we will evaluate 2017 catches against these final ACLs when data become available in mid-2018. The proposed ACLs and AMs support the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.
The final specifications are effective January 10, 2018. The final specifications are applicable from January 1, 2017, through December 31,
Copies of the Fishery Ecosystem Plans for the Hawaiian Archipelago, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands are available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or
Sarah Ellgen, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5173.
NMFS is specifying ACLs and AMs for the crustacean and precious corals MUS in American Samoa, Guam, the CNMI, and Hawaii, and the bottomfish MUS in American Samoa, Guam, and the CNMI for fishing year 2017. NMFS proposed these specifications on October 30, 2017 (82 FR 50112), and the final specifications do not differ from those proposed. The 2017 fishing year began on January 1 and ended on December 31, except for precious coral fisheries, which began on July 1, 2017, and ends on June 30, 2018. The final 2017 ACLs and AMs are identical to those that NMFS specified for 2016 (82 FR 18716, April 21, 2017).
The 2017 ACL for CNMI slipper lobsters is identical to the 2016 ACL, even though 2016 fishery data indicate that catch exceeded the 2016 ACL. For these lobsters, there is no estimate of the overfishing limit or maximum sustainable yield. Prior to 2016, there were only three years (2007-2009) of available catch information, so in 2014, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee recommended a proxy for calculating the ACL for CNMI slipper lobsters. Using a catch-to-habitat proxy with data from the Hawaii slipper lobster fishery (the only area that has specifically documented harvesting of slipper lobsters) the Council recommended setting an ACL for CNMI slipper lobsters in 2016-2018 at the allowable biological catch (60 lb). At its June 2017 meeting, the Council reviewed the 2016 CNMI slipper lobster catch and noted that the 304 lb reported catch, combined with zero reported catch in the previous two years, resulted in a three-year average catch of 101 lb, which exceeded the ACL. The Council determined that the increase in reported catch was due to the Territory Science Initiative (a pilot program to improve commercial vendor reporting in the CNMI) and the associated improvements in catch reporting, not due to actual increase in harvest. The Council also concluded that, based on current stock data, the overage was not likely to have had an impact on stock sustainability or result in overfishing. The Council concluded that applying the 2016 AM (which would have reduced the 2017 ACL by the amount of the overage) was not necessary and, instead, recommended maintaining the 2017 CNMI slipper lobster ACL at 60 lb. The three-year average catch of the other fisheries identified in this action did not exceed their respective ACLs.
In this action, NMFS is not specifying 2017 ACLs for Hawaii Kona crab and Hawaii non-Deep 7 bottomfish, or coral reef ecosystem MUS in any island area. This is because NMFS has new information that requires additional environmental analyses to support the Council's ACL recommendations for those MUS. NMFS may propose those ACL specifications in a separate action(s). In addition, NMFS has already specified the 2017-2018 ACL and AM for Hawaii Deep 7 bottomfish (82 FR 29778, June 30, 2017).
NMFS is also not specifying ACLs for MUS that are currently subject to Federal fishing moratoria or prohibitions. They include all species of gold coral (78 FR 32181, May 29, 2013), the three Hawaii seamount groundfish, that is pelagic armorhead, alfonsin, and raftfish (75 FR 69015, November 10, 2010), and all species of deep-water precious corals at the Westpac Bed Refugia (75 FR 2198, January 14, 2010). The current prohibitions on fishing for these MUS serve as a functional equivalent of an ACL of zero.
Additionally, NMFS is not specifying ACLs for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, or coral reef ecosystem MUS identified in the Pacific Remote Islands Area (PRIA) FEP. This is because fishing is prohibited in the EEZ within 12 nm of emergent land, unless authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), pending the USFWS sending NMFS fishery data during consultation with NMFS and the Council (78 FR 32996, June 3, 2013). To date, NMFS has not received fishery data that would support any such approvals. There is also no suitable habitat for these stocks beyond the 12-nm no-fishing zone, except at Kingman Reef, where fishing for these resources does not occur. Therefore, the current prohibitions on fishing serve as the functional equivalent of an ACL of zero. However, NMFS will continue to monitor authorized fishing within the PRIA Monument in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and may develop additional fishing requirements, including monument-specific catch limits for species that may require them.
NMFS is not specifying ACLs for pelagic MUS because we previously determined that pelagic species are subject to international fishery agreements or have a life cycle of approximately one year and, therefore, have statutory exceptions to the ACL requirements. In addition, NMFS specified the 2017-2018 ACL and AM for Hawaii Deep 7 bottomfish earlier this year (82 FR 29778, June 30, 2017).
Tables 1-4 specify the 2017 ACLs.
Federal logbook entries and required catch reporting from fisheries in Federal waters are not sufficient to monitor and track catches towards the ACL specifications accurately. This is because most fishing for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem MUS occurs in state waters, generally 0-3 nm from shore. For these reasons, NMFS will apply a moving 3-year average catch to evaluate fishery performance against the ACLs. Specifically, NMFS and the Council will use the average catch during fishing year 2015, 2016, and 2017 to evaluate fishery performance against the appropriate 2017 ACL. At the end of each fishing year, the Council will review catches relative to each ACL. If NMFS and the Council determine that the three-year average catch for the fishery exceeds the specified ACL, NMFS and the Council will reduce the ACL for that fishery by the amount of the overage in 2018.
You may review additional background information on this action in the preamble to the proposed specifications (82 FR 50112; October 30, 2017); we do not repeat that information here.
The comment period for the proposed specifications ended on November 14, 2017. NMFS received no public comments. NMFS specifically invited public comments addressing the impact, if any, of the proposed specifications on cultural fishing practices in American Samoa. NMFS received no comments for these specifications regarding cultural fishing practices or impacts to such fishing practices in American Samoa. NMFS has no information that these ACLs and AMs will have any impact on American Samoa cultural fishing practices.
There are no changes in the final specifications from the proposed specifications.
The Regional Administrator, NMFS PIR, determined that this action is necessary for the conservation and management of Pacific Island fisheries,
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS published the factual basis for certification in the proposed specifications, and does not repeat it here. NMFS did not receive comments regarding the certification and has no reason to think that anything has changed to affect it. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and one was not prepared.
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the Florida Tomato Committee (Committee) for a decrease in the assessment rate established for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods of tomatoes grown in Florida, handled under the marketing order (Order). The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated. This proposed rule also makes administrative revisions to the subpart headings to bring the language into conformance with the Office of Federal Register requirements.
Comments must be received by January 10, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or internet:
Steven W. Kauffman, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes an amendment to regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 125 and Order No. 966, as amended (7 CFR part 966), regulating the handling of tomatoes grown in Florida. Part 966, (hereinafter referred to as the “Order”), is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers of tomatoes operating within the area of production.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This proposed rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, Florida tomato handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate will be applicable to all assessable tomatoes beginning on August 1, 2017, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.035 to $0.025 per 25-pound container or equivalent of tomatoes handled.
The Order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers of Florida tomatoes. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information
The Committee met on August 22, 2017, and unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $1,494,600 and an assessment rate of $0.025 per 25-pound container or equivalent of tomatoes. Last year's budgeted expenditures were also $1,494,600. The assessment rate of $0.025 is $0.01 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reduce the assessment burden on handlers and utilize funds from the authorized reserve to help cover Committee expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 year include $450,000 for staff salaries, $400,000 for research, and $400,000 for education and promotion. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were also $450,000, $400,000, and $400,000, respectively.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments of Florida tomatoes, and the level of funds in the authorized reserve. Tomato shipments for the year are estimated at 33 million 25-pound containers, which should provide $825,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $979,410) would be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order (approximately one fiscal period's expenses as stated in § 966.44).
The assessment rate proposed in this rule would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate would be effective for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public, and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2017-18 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 80 producers of Florida tomatoes in the production area and 47 handlers subject to regulation under the Marketing Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to industry and Committee data, the average annual price for fresh Florida tomatoes during the 2016-17 season was approximately $8.00 per 25-pound container, and total fresh shipments were 32.8 million containers. Using the average price and shipment information, the number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers have average annual receipts of less than $7,500,000. In addition, based on production data, an estimated producer price of $3.00 per 25-pound container, and the number of Florida tomato producers, the average annual producer revenue is above $750,000. Thus, a majority of the handlers of Florida tomatoes may be classified as small entities, while a majority of the producers may be classified as large entities.
This proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate established for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.035 to $0.025 per 25-pound container or equivalent of Florida tomatoes. The Committee unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $1,494,600 and an assessment rate of $0.025 per 25-pound container or equivalent handled. The assessment rate of $0.025 is $0.01 lower than the 2016-17 rate. The quantity of assessable Florida tomatoes for the 2017-18 fiscal period is estimated at 33 million 25-pound containers or equivalent. Thus, the $0.025 rate should provide $825,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 year include $450,000 for staff salaries, $400,000 for research, and $400,000 for education and promotion. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were also $450,000, $400,000, and $400,000, respectively.
The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reduce the assessment burden on handlers and utilize funds from the authorized reserve to help cover Committee expenses.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Finance Subcommittee, Education and Promotion Subcommittee, and the Research Subcommittee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various activities to the Florida tomato industry. Based on estimated shipments, the recommended assessment rate of $0.025 should provide $825,000 in assessment income. The Committee determined assessment revenue, along with interest income and funds from authorized reserves would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2017-18 fiscal period.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the average producer price for the 2017-18 season could be about $6.50 per 25-pound container or equivalent of Florida tomatoes. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2017-18 crop year as a percentage of total producer revenue would be around 0.4 percent.
This proposed action would decrease the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Florida tomato industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 22, 2017, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small,
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposal does not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Florida tomato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this proposed rule, as hereinafter set forth, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tomatoes.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 966 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after August 1, 2017, an assessment rate of $0.025 per 25-pound container is established for Florida tomatoes.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule; supplemental notification of public hearing.
A public hearing is being held, on an emergency basis, to consider a proposal submitted by Southeast Milk, Inc., Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Premier Milk, Inc., Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc., and Lone Star Milk Producers, L.C. This supplemental notice extends the hearing from December 12, 2017, through December 14, 2017, in order to provide adequate public notification.
The hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. on December 12, 2017, December 13, 2017 and December 14, 2017.
The hearing will be held at the Embassy Suites by Hilton Tampa Downtown Convention Center, 513 South Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602; telephone (813) 769-8326.
Erin Taylor, Acting Director, Order Formulation and Enforcement Division, USDA/AMS/Dairy Program, Stop 0231—Room 2963, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0231; (202) 720-7311; email address:
On December 7, 2017, a Notice of Hearing was placed on public inspection at the
Therefore, notice is hereby given that the public hearing to be held at the Embassy Suites by Hilton Tampa Downtown Convention Center, 513 South Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602, will be held December 12, 2017, through December 14, 2017. The hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m. on each hearing day. If no interested persons appear to present testimony or evidence by noon on December 13, 2017 or December 14, 2017, the hearing will conclude at noon on that day.
Milk marketing orders.
7 U.S.C. 601-674, and 7253.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule: notification of public hearing.
A public hearing is being held, on an emergency basis, to consider a proposal submitted by Southeast Milk, Inc., Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Premier Milk, Inc., Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc., and Lone Star Milk Producers, L.C. The proposal seeks a temporary supplemental charge on Class I milk to provide emergency reimbursement to handlers and producers for costs incurred as a result of market disruptions stemming from Hurricane Irma in September 2017 which caused extensive damage in the United States.
The hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. on December 12, 2017.
The hearing will be held at the Embassy Suites by Hilton Tampa Downtown Convention Center, 513 South Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602; telephone (813) 769-8326.
Erin Taylor, Acting Director, Order Formulation and Enforcement Division, USDA/AMS/Dairy Program, Stop 0231-Room 2963, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0231; (202) 720-7311; email address:
Persons requiring a sign language interpreter or other special accommodations should contact Sherry Swanson, AMS Dairy Program, at (470) 767-5084, email:
This proposed rule is governed by the provisions of Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States Code and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is exempt from the definition of “regulation” or “rule” in Executive Order 12866 and, thus, is not a regulatory action.
The hearing is called pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674) (Act), and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR part 900).
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held at the Embassy Suites by Hilton Tampa Downtown Convention Center, 513 South Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602, beginning at 9:00 a.m. on December 12, 2017, with respect to proposed amendments to the tentative marketing agreements and order regulating the handling of milk in the Florida milk marketing area.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence with respect to the economic and marketing conditions which relate to the proposed amendments, hereinafter set forth, and any appropriate modifications thereof, to the tentative marketing agreements and to the order.
Actions under the Federal milk order program are subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA). The RFA seeks to ensure that, within the statutory authority of a program, the regulatory and information collection requirements are tailored to the size and nature of small businesses. For the purpose of the RFA, a dairy farm is a “small business” if it has an annual gross revenue of less than $750,000, and a dairy products manufacturer is a “small business” if it has fewer than 500 employees (13 CFR 121.201). Most parties subject to a milk order are considered small businesses. Accordingly, interested parties are invited to present evidence on the probable regulatory and informational impact of the hearing proposals on small businesses. Also, parties may offer modifications of these proposals for the purpose of tailoring their applicability to small businesses.
The amendments proposed herein have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have a retroactive effect. If adopted, the proposed amendments would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under Section 8c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may request modification or exemption from such order by filing with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with the law. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After a hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has its principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's decision on the petition, provided a complaint is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
The public hearing is being conducted to collect evidence for the record concerning the potential need for emergency payments to reimburse handlers and producers for costs they incurred as a result of disruptions stemming from Hurricane Irma. The payments as proposed would be through a temporary $0.09 per hundredweight increase in the Class I price under the order. The increase would only be applicable for the number of months necessary to cover the documented costs.
Evidence also will be taken at the hearing to determine whether emergency marketing conditions exist that would warrant omission of a recommended decision under the rules of practice and procedure (7 CFR 900.12(d)) with respect to any proposed amendments.
Interested parties who wish to introduce exhibits should provide the Administrative Law Judge at the hearing with four (4) copies of such exhibits for the official record. Additional copies should be made available for the use of other hearing participants. Any party that has submitted a proposal noticed herein, when participating as a witness, is required to make their testimony—if prepared as an exhibit—and any other exhibits, available to USDA officials prior to the start of the hearing on the day of their appearance. Individual dairy farmers are not subject to this requirement.
Copies of this notification of hearing may be obtained online at,
Copies of the transcript of testimony and exhibits taken at the hearing will be made available for viewing at
From the time that a hearing notice is issued and until the issuance of a final decision in a proceeding, Department employees involved in the decision making process are prohibited from discussing the merits of the hearing issues on an ex parte basis with any person having an interest in the proceeding. For this particular proceeding, the prohibition applies to employees in the following organizational units: Office of the Secretary of Agriculture; Office of the Administrator, AMS; Office of the
Testimony is invited on the following proposal or appropriate modifications to such proposal. The proposed amendment, as set forth below, has not received the approval of the Department.
Proposed by Southeast Milk, Inc., Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Premier Milk, Inc., Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc., and Lone Star Milk Producers, L.C.
The proposal details substantial and extraordinary losses to the Florida dairy industry as a result of physical damages; heat stress to animals; market losses; and additional transportation costs stemming from Hurricane Irma. The proposal would provide for emergency relief for Florida handlers and producers for costs incurred September 6 through September 15, 2017. The categories of recovery costs requested include: (1) The minimum class price value of whole and skim milk dumped due to market unavailability during plant shutdowns; (2) additional transportation costs associated with milk movements resulting from the hurricane; (3) lost minimum location price value on milk movements out of market; and (4) price losses on distress sales of milk. Proposed amendments to the Florida Federal Milk Marketing Order are set out in the regulatory text below.
Proposed by Dairy Program, Agricultural Marketing Service.
Make such changes as may be necessary to make the entire marketing agreement and the order conform with any amendments thereto that may result from this hearing.
Milk marketing orders.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, AMS proposes to amend 7 CFR part 1006 as follow:
7 U.S.C. 601-674, and 7253.
(a) Multiply the pounds of skim milk and butterfat in producer milk that were classified in each class pursuant to § 1000.44(c) by the applicable skim milk and butterfat prices, and add the resulting amounts; except that for the months of __2018 through __2018, the Class I skim milk price for this purpose shall be the Class I skim milk price as determined in § 1000.50(b) plus $0.09 per hundredweight, and the Class I butterfat price for this purpose shall be the Class I butterfat price as determined in § 1000.50(c) plus $0. _____per pound. The adjustments to the Class I skim milk and butterfat prices provided herein may be reduced by the market administrator for any month if the market administrator determines that the payments yet unpaid computed pursuant to paragraphs (g)(1) through paragraph (g)(6) of this section will be less than the amount computed pursuant to paragraph (g)(6) of this section. The adjustments to the Class I skim milk and butterfat prices provided herein during the months of _____shall be announced along with the prices announced in § 1000.53(b).
(g) For transactions occurring during the period of September 6, 2017 through September 15, 2017, for handlers who have submitted proof satisfactory to the market administrator to determine eligibility for reimbursement of hurricane-imposed costs, subtract an amount equal to:
(1) The cost of transportation on loads of producer milk rerouted from pool distributing plants to plants outside the state of Florida which were rerouted as a result of Hurricane Irma. The reimbursement of transportation costs pursuant to this section shall be the actual demonstrated cost of such transportation of bulk milk or the miles of transportation on such loads of bulk milk multiplied by $3.75 per loaded mile, whichever is less.
(2) The lost location value on loads of producer milk rerouted to plants outside the state of Florida as a result of Hurricane Irma. The lost location value shall be the difference per hundredweight between the value stated in part 1000.52 at the plant to which the milk would have gone and the value in part 1000.52 at the plant to which the milk was rerouted;
(3) The value per hundredweight at the lowest classified price for the month of September 2017 for milk dumped at the farm and classified as other use milk pursuant to section 1000.40(e) as a result of Hurricane Irma;
(4) The value per hundredweight at the lowest classified price for the month of September 2017 for milk dumped from milk tankers after being moved off-farm and classified as other use milk pursuant to section 1000.40(e) as a result of Hurricane Irma;
(5) The value per hundredweight at the lowest classified price for the month of September 2017 for skim milk dumped and classified as other use milk pursuant to Section 1000.40(e) as a result of Hurricane Irma; and
(6) The difference between the lowest class price for the month of September 2017 and the actual price received for distress milk moved to nonpool plants as a result of Hurricane Irma;
(h) The total amount of payment to all handlers under this section shall be limited for each month to an amount determined by multiplying the total Class I producer milk for all handlers pursuant to § 1000.44(c) times $0.09 per hundredweight;
(i) If the cost of payments computed pursuant to paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this section exceeds the amount computed pursuant to paragraph (h) of this section, the market administrator shall prorate such payments to each handler based on each handler's proportion of transportation and other use milk costs submitted pursuant to paragraphs (g)(1) through (6). Costs submitted pursuant to paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) which are not paid as a result of such a proration shall be paid in subsequent months until all costs incurred and documented through (g)(1) through (6) have been paid.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
We must receive comments on this NPRM by January 25, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Zodiac Seats France, Rue Robert Marechal Senior B.P. 69, 36100 Issoudun, France; phone: +33 (0) 9 70 83 08 30; fax: +33 (0) 2 54 03 39 00; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dorie Resnik, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7693; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2016-0163, dated August 10, 2016 (referred to hereafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Cases were reported by operators of finding safety belt worn out at the attachment to the cabin attendant seat. This kind of belt damage is due to chafing between the belt and the surrounding metal lap belt fitting of the cabin attendant seat. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the attendant seat to perform its intended function, possibly resulting in injury to the seat occupant. Prompted by these occurrences, Zodiac Seats France issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. 537-25-003, providing instructions to modify the affected seats. For the reason described above, this AD requires a modification of the seat pan shaft by installing new seat pan spacers, and subsequent re-identification with a new P/N.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed Zodiac Seats France Service Bulletin (SB) No. 537-25-003, Revision 1, dated August 29, 2016. The SB describes procedures for installing an anti-rotation device on the seat pan shaft to limit the rotation of the safety belt on ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes. We also reviewed Service Information Letter (SIL) 537-01, dated July 31, 2015. The SIL provides details to identify if the safety belt must be removed and replaced and provides instructions on safety belt storage to avoid this premature wear. 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 EASA, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require inspecting, modifying, and re-marking certain cabin attendant seats.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 55 seat assemblies installed on, but not limited to, ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
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 engines and propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, 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 25, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to all Zodiac Seats France cabin attendant seats, 537 series, part numbers 53701-( )( )-( )( )( ).
These appliances are installed on, but not limited to, ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 2500 Code, Cabin Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by operator reports that safety belt wear was found at the attachment to the cabin attendant seat. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of these attendant seats.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 720 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, inspect safety belt webbing, modify and re-mark each affected cabin attendant seat using sections (2)(A) through (2)(B) of Zodiac Seats France Service Bulletin (SB) No. 537-25-003, Revision 1, dated August 29, 2016 and Zodiac Seats France Service Information Letter 537-01, dated July 31, 2015.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install any affected cabin attendant seat on any aircraft.
(1) The Manager, FAA, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 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 Boston ACO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. You may email your request 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Dorie Resnik, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7693; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2016-0163, dated August 10, 2016, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) Zodiac Seats France SB No. 537-25-003, Revision 1, dated August 29, 2016, and Zodiac Seats France Service Information Letter 537-01, dated July 31, 2015 can be obtained from Zodiac Seats France, using the contact information in paragraph (i)(4) of this proposed AD.
(4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Zodiac Seats France, Rue Robert Marechal Senior B.P. 69, 36100 Issoudun, France; phone: +33 (0) 9 70 83 08 30; fax: +33 (0) 2 54 03 39 00; email:
(5) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Textron Aviation Inc. Models 510, 680, and 680A airplanes equipped with certain part number brake assemblies. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that brake pad wear indicator pins were set incorrectly, which could lead to brake pad wear beyond the acceptable limits without indication. This proposed AD would require inspection of the brake pad wear indicator pins and replacement of the brake assembly if any pin is set incorrectly. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 25, 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 Textron Aviation Inc., One Cessna Boulevard, P.O. Box 7704, Wichita, Kansas 67277; phone: 316-517-6215; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
•
•
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 received information from UTC Aerospace Systems (UTC) that brake pad wear indicator pins were set incorrectly on certain Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Models 510, 680, and 680A airplanes equipped with brake assemblies, part numbers (P/Ns) 2-1706-1 and 2-1675-1, with certain serial numbers. Brakes overhauled by UTC may have wear indicator pins set longer than specified. UTC discovered this condition during their inspection of incoming brakes. This condition, if not corrected, could result in brake pad wear beyond the acceptable limits without indication and consequent loss of braking ability, which could lead to a runway excursion.
We reviewed UTC Service Bulletin 2-1706-1-32-1, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2017; and UTC Service Bulletin 2-1675-32-2, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2017. For the applicable models, the service information identifies the affected serial number brake assemblies and describes procedures for inspecting the wear indicator pins. 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 also reviewed Textron Aviation Inc. Service Letters SL510-32-08, SL680-32-15, and SL680A-32-05, all dated July 21, 2017. For the applicable airplane models, these service letters direct the operators to use Goodrich Service Bulletins 2-1706-1-32-1 and 2-1675-32-2. However, the Goodrich Service Bulletins that the Textron Aviation Inc. Service Letters refer to and intend for operators to use are titled UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 2-1706-1-32-1, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2017; and UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 2-1675-32-2, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2017. The UTC service bulletins are included as attachments to the Textron service letters.
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.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 668 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 replacement that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these replacements:
According to the manufacturer, the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes and domestic business jet transport airplanes to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by January 25, 2018.
None.
(1) This AD applies to Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) (type certificates previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Models 510, 680, and 680A airplanes equipped with a brake assembly specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD, certificated in any category:
(i)
(ii)
(2) The UTC service bulletins are included as attachments to Textron Service Letters SL510-32-08, SL680-32-15, and SL680A-32-05, all dated July 21, 2017. However, you may also obtain the UTC service bulletins directly from UTC using the contact
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by information received from UTC that brake pad wear indicator pins were set incorrectly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct wear indicator pins that were set at an incorrect length. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in brake pad wear beyond the acceptable limits without indication and consequent loss of braking ability, which could lead to a runway excursion.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1)
(2)
(3) The compliance times in this AD are presented in landings. If you do not keep a record of the total number of landings, then multiply the total number of hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date by 0.85 for Model 510 airplanes and multiply the total number of hours TIS after the effective date by 0.73 for Models 680 and 680A airplanes to estimate the number of landings.
If any brake pad wear indicator pin is found to have an incorrect length during the inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, contact Textron for FAA-approved replacement instructions approved specifically for this AD. You may use the contact information listed in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
We allow a special flight permit per 14 CFR 39.23 for the replacement of the brake assembly required in paragraph (h) of this AD provided the wear indicator pin length extends a minimum of 0.200 inches beyond the brake assembly housing with the brakes engaged.
(1) The Manager, Wichita 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 (k)(1) of this AD.
(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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact one of the following:
(i)
(ii)
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Textron Aviation Inc., One Cessna Boulevard, P.O. Box 7704, Wichita, Kansas 67277; phone: 316-517-6215; email:
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 Manley Hot Springs Airport, Manley Hot Springs, AK to accommodate the development of area navigation (RNAV) instrument flight rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport, and for the safety and management of IFR operations within the National Airspace System.
Comments must be received on or before January 25, 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-2017-0970; Airspace Docket No. 16-AAL-6, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Robert LaPlante, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4566.
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
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 Docket No. FAA-2017-0970, Airspace Docket No. 16-AAL-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Manley Hot Springs Airport, Manley Hot Springs, AK. This airspace is necessary to accommodate the development of RNAV (IFR) operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport. Class E airspace would be established within a 6.3-mile radius of Manley Hot Springs 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 6.3-mile radius of Manley Hot Springs Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.C
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Yuma Municipal Airport, Yuma, CO, to accommodate the development of area navigation (RNAV) instrument flight rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport, and for the safety and management of IFR operations within the National Airspace System.
Comments must be received on or before January 25, 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-2017-1064; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-32, 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.
Robert LaPlante, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4566.
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 at Yuma Municipal Airport, Yuma, CO, to support IFR operations at the airport.
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 Docket No. FAA-2017-1064/Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-32.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Yuma Municipal Airport, Yuma, CO. This airspace is necessary to accommodate the development of RNAV (IFR) operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport. Class E airspace would be established within a 6.4-mile radius of Yuma Municipal 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
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 6.4-mile radius of Yuma Municipal Airport.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the Military Street Bridge, mile 0.33, the Seventh Street Bridge, mile 0.50, the Tenth Street Bridge, mile 0.94, and the Canadian National Railroad Bridge, mile 1.56, across the Black River at Port Huron, MI. The City of Port Huron requested the winter hours to be expanded for City-operated highway bridges. We have reviewed the regulation in its entirety because the current regulation is approximately 30 years old, use of the waterway has substantially changed, and the current language and conditions in the regulation are difficult to follow and understand.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 10, 2018.
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email
The Black River flows southwest through the City of Port Huron, MI and empties into the St. Clair River just below the south end of Lake Huron. Large commercial freighters once traveled up the Black River to facilities past the Canadian National Railroad Bridge, but currently the river is mostly used by recreational vessels with a few small commercial vessels operating in the river. Large commercial vessels do not currently trade in the Black River.
The Military Street Bridge provides a horizontal clearance of 73 feet and a vertical clearance of 13 feet above LWD in the closed position.
The Seventh Street Bridge provides a horizontal clearance of 83 feet and a vertical clearance of 12 feet above LWD in the closed position.
The Tenth Street Bridge provides a horizontal clearance of 90 feet and a vertical clearance of 18 feet above LWD in the closed position.
The Canadian National Railroad Bridge provides a horizontal clearance of 80 feet and a vertical clearance of 14 feet above LWD in the closed position.
The CSX Railroad Bridge, mile 0.09, is out of service and locked in the fully open position.
All five drawbridges provide an unlimited vertical clearance in the open position.
The CSX Railroad Bridge and Canadian National Railroad Bridge are not included in the existing regulation.
The current regulation allows the Military Street Bridge and the Seventh Street Bridge to operate on the hour and half-hour between May 1 and October 31, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, except Federal Holidays. In April and November, between the hours of 4 p.m. and 8 a.m., both bridges require a 3-hour advance notice for openings.
The Tenth Street Bridge is currently required to open on signal from May 1 through October 31, except from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. a 1-hour advance notice is required for openings. In April and November the bridge requires a 3-hour advance notice for openings at all times.
From December 1 through March 31 all three highway bridges requires at least 24 hours notice for openings.
As noted above, both the CSX Railroad and Canadian National Railroad bridges are not included in the existing regulation.
The City of Port Huron operates the three highway bridges and requested the winter operating dates to be expanded due to a lack of openings, use of the waterway has substantially changed, and early development of ice in the river that prevents most recreational vessels from transiting the waterway between November 1 and April 30. They requested the winter operating schedules (with 12-hours advance notice from vessels) to apply November 1 through April 30 each year.
In addition to reviewing winter operating dates we have reviewed the current operating schedules for all drawbridges on the waterway. During our coordination with the City of Port Huron and stakeholders, concerns were also received regarding vehicle congestion and predictable bridge openings when the Military Street and Seventh Street Bridges are opened simultaneously for vessels. Both bridges currently open on the hour and half-hour. This proposed rule is expected to reflect the current usage of the waterway by marine entities during the navigation season and winter periods, improve both marine and vehicular traffic mobility by reducing congestion and delays, simplify the schedules and language in the existing regulation, and provide for the reasonable needs of navigation.
This proposed rule alternates, or staggers, openings of the three highway bridges with Military Street and Tenth Street opening on the hour and half-hour, and Seventh Street (the middle highway bridge), on the quarter and three-quarter-hour, thereby providing predictable bridge openings and avoiding all of the highway bridges opening simultaneously, and allowing continuous vessel movements through the highway bridges. To prevent congestion at the bridges the drawbridges will open at any time five or more vessels are waiting for an opening. This change is expected to reduce vehicular traffic congestion and delays, and reduce the chance vessels will be stuck between the highway bridges and waiting for extended times for bridge openings.
The Tenth Street Bridge is the furthest upriver highway bridge and provides a higher vertical clearance than the Military Street or the Seventh Street drawbridges, allowing most vessels to pass under the bridge without an opening. The volume of marine traffic and upriver marine facilities that require Tenth Street Bridge openings is significantly lower than Military and Seventh Street Bridges but the vehicular traffic is considerably higher than the other highway bridges. Between May 1 and October 31 this proposed rule will allow the Tenth Street Bridge to open on the hour and half-hour from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. From 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. the bridge will require a 1-hour advance notice for openings. This schedule is expected to provide predictable bridge openings for vehicles to cross the river at any time while still providing for the reasonable needs of navigation. Between November 1 and April 30 the bridge will require a 12-hours advance notice to open.
The Canadian National Railroad Bridge normally remains in the open to navigation position and only closes to navigation to accommodate the passage of trains. This proposed rule will add the Canadian National Bridge to the current regulation. The bridge will open on signal at all times between May 1 and October 31, and will open if 12-hours advance notice is provided between November 1 and April 30, matching the winter schedules of the highway bridges.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the drawbridges by giving advanced notice at all times of the year.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridges may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator because we coordinated with the marina operators and the local yacht clubs and incorporated their concerns into the proposed regulation.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this proposed rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) The draw of the Military Street Bridge, mile 0.33, shall open on signal; except that, from May 1 through October 31, from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week, the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour for recreational vessels, or at any time when there are more than five vessels waiting for an opening, and from November 1 through April 30 if at least 12-hours advance notice is given.
(b) The draw of the Seventh Street Bridge, mile 0.50, shall open on signal; except that, from May 1 through October 31, from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week, the draw need open only on the quarter-hour and three-quarter-hour for recreational vessels, or at any time when there are more than five vessels waiting for an opening, and from November 1 through April 30 if at least 12-hours advance notice is given.
(c) The draw of the Tenth Street Bridge, mile 0.94, shall open on signal; except that, from May 1 through October 31, from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week, the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour for recreational vessels, or at any time when there are more than five vessels waiting for an opening, and from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. if at least 1-hour advance notice is provided, and from November 1 through April 30 if at least 12-hours notice is given.
(d) The draw of the Canadian National Railroad Bridge, mile 1.56, shall open on signal; except from November 1 through April 30 if at least 12-hours advance notice is given.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for the navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 94 and MM 95, above Head of Passes. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near New Orleans, LA, during a fireworks display on April 21, 2018. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) or a designated representative. We invite
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 9, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0930 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Howard Vacco, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-365-2281, email
On September 14, 2017, New Orleans Convention Company, Inc. notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 7:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on April 21, 2018. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge on the Lower Mississippi River at approximate mile marker (MM) 94.5, above Head of Passes, off Algiers Point, New Orleans, LA. Hazards from firework displays include discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks would be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile length of the river.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a one-mile range of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 7:30 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. on April 21, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between MM 94 and MM 95, above Head of Passes. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and short duration of the waterway closure, which will remain in effect for one hour on a one-mile section of the waterway. In addition, vessel traffic seeking to transit the area may seek permission from the COTP or his designated representative to do so.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that would prohibit entry within a one mile section of the Lower Mississippi River. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67.
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters on the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 95.7 to MM 96.7, Above Head of Passes. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP). We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 10, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-1057 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Howard Vacco, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-365-2281, email
On November 7, 2017, the Association of General Contractors of America notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting a fireworks display from 7:30 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. on February 27, 2018. The fireworks will to be launched from a barge on the Lower Mississippi River at approximate mile marker (MM) 96.2, Above Head of Passes, New Orleans, LA. Hazards from firework displays include discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks would be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile length of the river.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a one-mile range of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 7:30 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. on February 27, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between MM 95.7 and MM 96.7, Above Head of Passes. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and short duration of the waterway closure, which will remain in effect for one hour on a one-mile section of the waterway. In addition, vessel traffic seeking to transit the area may seek permission from the COTP or his designated representative to do so.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that would prohibit entry within a one-mile section of the Lower Mississippi River. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67.
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for the navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 94 and MM 95, above Head of Passes. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near New Orleans, LA, during a fireworks display on April 22, 2018. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 9, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0930 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Howard Vacco,
On March 14, 2017, the NOLA 2018 Foundation notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 8 p.m. through 9 p.m. on April 22, 2018. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge on the Lower Mississippi River at approximate mile marker (MM) 94.5, above Head of Passes, off Algiers Point, New Orleans, LA. Hazards from firework displays include discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks would be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile length of the river.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a one-mile range of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 8:00 p.m. through 9:00 p.m. on April 22, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between MM 94 and MM 95, above Head of Passes. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and short duration of the waterway closure, which will remain in effect for one hour on a one-mile section of the waterway. In addition, vessel traffic seeking to transit the area may seek permission from the COTP or his designated representative to do so.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67.
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(d)
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Request for reply comments; notice of
On December 1, 2017, the United States Copyright Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments concerning the royalty reporting practices of cable operators under section 111 and proposed revisions to the Statement of Account forms, and on proposed amendments to the Statement of Account filing requirements. The Copyright Office has determined that reply comments would also be appropriate for this rulemaking. In addition, the Office has determined that informal
Initial written comments in response to the proposed rule published December 1, 2017, at 82 FR 56926, continue to be due no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on January 16, 2018. Written reply comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on January 30, 2018.
For reasons of government efficiency, the Copyright Office is using the
Sarang V. Damle, General Counsel and
On December 1, 2017, the Office issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) on proposed rules governing the royalty reporting practices of cable operators under section 111 and proposed revisions to the Statement of Account forms, and on proposed amendments to the Statement of Account filing requirements.
The Office has determined that interested parties should be given an opportunity to address the proposed regulation and any comments submitted in response to the NPRM before the Office adopts a final rule. Accordingly, the Office concludes that reply comments would be appropriate. Interested parties must submit written reply comments in accordance with the deadline specified in the
Typically, the Office's communications with participants about ongoing rulemakings do not include discussions about the substance of the proceeding apart from the noticed phases of written comments. The Office has determined that informal communication with interested parties might be beneficial in this rulemaking, such as to discuss nuances of proposed regulatory language. Any such communication may occur before and after public comments are submitted to the Office, but before a final rule has issued. Parties wishing to participate in informal discussions with the Office should submit a written request using the contact information above.
The primary means to communicate views in the course of the rulemaking will, however, continue to be through the submission of written comments. In other words, informal communication will supplement, not substitute for, the written record. Should a party meet with the Office regarding this rulemaking, the participating party will be responsible for submitting a list of attendees and written summary of any oral communication to the Office, which will be made publicly available on the Office's Web site or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to modify the use conditions required for use of three flammable refrigerants, isobutane (R-600a), propane (R-290), and R-441A, in new household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The use conditions, which address safe use of flammable refrigerants, would reflect the incorporation by reference of an updated standard from Underwriters Laboratories. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Written comments must be received on or before January 25, 2018. Any party requesting a public hearing must notify the contact listed below under
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0472, to the
Chenise Farquharson, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6205T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-7768; email address:
This action proposes to revise the use conditions for three flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants, isobutane (R-600a), propane (R-290), and R-441A, used in new household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators
If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.
We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the
If requested by the date specified in the
This notice of proposed rulemaking would regulate the use of three flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants, isobutane (R-600a), propane (R-290), and the hydrocarbon blend R-441A, in new household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers. Table 1 identifies industry subsectors that might want to explore the use of these flammable refrigerants in this end-use or that might work with equipment using these refrigerants in the future. Regulated entities may include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 82. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not 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 requirements contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0226. This rule contains no new requirements for reporting or recordkeeping.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule.
The use conditions of this rule would apply to manufacturers of new household refrigerators and freezers, that choose to use flammable refrigerants. This action would allow equipment manufacturers to use flammable refrigerants at a higher charge size than previously allowed in
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. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in risk screens for the various substitutes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.
This action involves a technical standard. EPA is proposing to revise the use conditions for the household refrigerators and freezers end-use by incorporating by reference the UL Standard 60335-2-24, “Safety Requirements for Household and Similar Electrical Appliances, Part 2: Particular Requirements for Refrigerating Appliances, Ice-Cream Appliances and Ice-Makers” (2nd edition, April 2017), which establishes requirements for the evaluation of household and similar electrical appliances, and safe use of flammable refrigerants. UL Standard 60335-2-24 supersedes the current edition of UL Standard 250, Supplement A, “Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System” (10th Edition, August 2000. EPA's revision to the use conditions will replace the 2000 UL standard 250 with the 2017 UL standard 60335-2-24. This standard is available at
The human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action's health and environmental risk assessments are contained in the risk screens for the various substitutes. The risk screens are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the federal regulations to withdraw certain human health (water and organisms) water quality criteria and certain freshwater acute and chronic aquatic life water quality criteria, applicable to certain waters of California because California adopted, and EPA approved, criteria for these parameters that are considered protective of the uses for the waterbodies. The EPA is providing an opportunity for public comment to this proposed withdrawal of certain federally promulgated criteria. The withdrawal will enable California to implement their EPA-approved water quality criteria.
Comments must be received on or before February 9, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0303, at
EPA is offering a virtual public hearing so that interested parties may also provide oral comments on this proposed rule. The virtual public hearing will be on January 25, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Pacific Time. For more details on the public hearing and a link to register, please visit
For information with respect to California, contact Diane E. Fleck, P.E. Esq., U.S. EPA Region 9, WTR-2, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105 (telephone: (415) 972-3527 or email:
No one is affected by the proposed action contained in this document. This proposed action would merely serve to withdraw certain federal water quality criteria that have been applicable to California that are no longer needed in light of approved state water quality criteria. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person identified in the preceding section entitled
On May 18, 2000, EPA promulgated a final rule known as the “California Toxics Rule” (“CTR”) at 40 CFR 131.38. This final rule established numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California, because the State had not complied fully with Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (65 FR 31682).
Consistent with the basic tenet of the CWA, EPA developed the water quality standards program emphasizing State primacy. Although in the CTR EPA promulgated toxic criteria for California, EPA prefers that states maintain primacy, revise their own standards, and achieve full compliance (see 57 FR 60860, December 22, 1992). As described in the preamble to the final CTR (see 65 FR 31681 (May 18, 2000)), when California adopts, and EPA approves, water quality criteria that meet the requirements of the CWA, EPA will issue a rule amending the CTR to withdraw the federal criteria applicable to California.
Consistent with the procedure described in the preamble to the final CTR, EPA is proposing to amend the federal regulations to withdraw certain federally promulgated human health (water and organisms) water quality criteria and certain freshwater aquatic life (acute and chronic) water quality criteria, applicable in California. EPA is providing an opportunity for public comment because the criteria adopted by the State and approved by EPA, while as protective for CWA purposes as the federally promulgated criteria, are less stringent than the federally promulgated criteria that EPA is now proposing to withdraw.
This action proposes to amend the federal regulations to withdraw human health (water & organisms) criteria for chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane for a segment of New Alamo Creek and a segment of Ulatis Creek, California. In addition, it proposes to amend the federal regulations to withdraw freshwater acute and chronic aquatic life criteria for lead for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries.
On May 18, 2000, in the CTR, EPA promulgated federal regulations establishing water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants for California. On November 3, 2011, California completed its adoption process to incorporate water quality criteria for chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane, for a segment of New Alamo Creek and a segment of Ulatis Creek. The State calls these criteria site-specific water quality objectives or site-specific objectives. On December 13, 2011, the State submitted the site-specific objectives to EPA Region 9 for review and approval.
On April 9, 2013, EPA approved site-specific objectives for that segment of New Alamo Creek and that segment of Ulatis Creek. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted the objectives in Resolution No. R5-2010-0047, the California State Water Resources Control Board approved of the objectives in Resolution 2011-0036 and EPA subsequently approved the State Board action.
Because California now has site-specific human health (for water and organisms) criteria approved by EPA for CWA purposes for
The following has been excerpted from the Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board—Central Valley Region (Basin Plan)—Resolution No. R5-2010-0047. Attachment 1 includes under the heading “ORGANIC CHEMICAL WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES,” California's recently adopted site-specific objectives for chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane, for a segment of New Alamo Creek and a segment of Ulatis Creek.
As explained above, EPA seeks public comment before withdrawing the federally promulgated criteria because although these state criteria have been determined to be scientifically sound and protective of the designated use(s) for the particular waters and otherwise meet the requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40
On May 18, 2000, in the CTR, EPA promulgated federal regulations establishing water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants for California. On July 11, 2016, California completed its adoption process to incorporate water quality objectives for lead for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. The State calls these criteria site-specific water quality objectives or site-specific objectives. On July 19, 2016, the State submitted the site-specific objectives to EPA Region 9 for review and approval. On December 12, 2016, EPA approved site-specific objectives for lead for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted these site-specific objectives under Resolution No. R15-004. The California State Water Resources Control Board in Resolution No. 2015-0069 subsequently approved the Regional Board action on these site-specific objectives, and EPA subsequently approved the State Board action.
Because California now has site-specific objectives for lead for the protection of aquatic life, approved by EPA for CWA purposes, for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries, EPA has determined that the federally promulgated freshwater acute and chronic aquatic life criteria for lead are no longer needed for these particular waters. 40 CFR 131.11(b)(1)(ii) allows States to establish water quality criteria that are “. . . modified to reflect site-specific conditions”, and, site-specific criteria still must be based on a sound scientific rationale in order to protect the designated use. The State's site-specific objectives for lead were based on a recalculation of the water quality objectives established in 40 CFR 131.38 using the EPA Recalculation Procedure; this procedure takes into account updates or revisions in the national dataset used in the national water quality criterion development. EPA found that the State's application of the Recalculation Procedure for lead to be consistent with guidance for the development of site-specific standards using recalculation procedures. Thus, EPA approved the State's site-specific objectives for lead, which are less stringent than the federally promulgated criteria, because EPA determined that the State's site-specific objectives were scientifically sound and protective of the designated use(s) for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries and met the requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131. More information on EPA's action, which approved California's adopted objectives, including EPA's approval letter and Record of Decision can be accessed at OW docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0303.
The following has been excerpted from the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board—Attachment A to: Revision of Lead Water Quality Objectives for Los Angeles River and Tributaries, Resolution No. R15-004.
As explained above, EPA seeks public comment before withdrawing the federally promulgated criteria because although these state criteria have been determined to be scientifically sound and protective of the designated use(s) for the particular waters and otherwise meet the requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131, the state criteria are less stringent than the promulgated federal criteria (see Table 2 in this preamble). This proposal will result in the withdrawal of federal freshwater acute and chronic criteria for lead under the CTR for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. However, the criteria for lead for other waters in California that are currently part of the CTR will remain in the federal promulgations.
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 expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This proposed rule is expected to provide meaningful burden reduction by withdrawal of certain federally promulgated criteria in certain waters of California.
This action does not impose any new information-collection burden under the PRA because it is administratively withdrawing federal requirements that are no longer needed in California. It does not include any information-collection, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. The OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR part 131 and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0286.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Small entities, such as small businesses or small governmental jurisdictions, are not directly regulated by this rule.
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. As this action proposes to withdraw certain federally promulgated criteria, the action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This rule imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any state or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from state and local officials.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any tribal government. It does not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, the relationship between the federal government and tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). EPA has previously determined, based on the most current science and EPA's CWA Section 304(a) recommended criteria, that California's adopted and EPA-approved criteria are protective of human health.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
For the reasons set out in the preamble title 40, Chapter I, part 131 of
33 U.S.C. 1251
(b)(1) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes status quo commercial quotas for the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries for 2018 and projected status quo quotas for 2019 and 2020. This action is necessary to establish allowable harvest levels of Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs that will prevent overfishing and allow harvesting of optimum yield. This action would also continue to suspend the minimum shell size for Atlantic surfclams for the 2018 fishing year. The intended effect of this action is to provide benefit to the industry from stable quotas to maintain a consistent market.
Comments must be received by December 26, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0118, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA), Supplemental Information Request (SIR), and other supporting documents for these proposed specifications are available from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901.
Erin Wilkinson, Fishery Management Specialist, 301-427-8561.
The Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan (FMP) requires that NMFS, in consultation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, specify quotas for surfclam and ocean quahog for up to a three-year period, with annual review. It is the policy of the Council that the catch limit selected allow for sustainable fishing to continue at that level for at least 10 years for surfclams, and 30 years for ocean quahogs. In addition to this, the Council policy also considers the economic impact of the quotas. Regulations implementing Amendment 10 to the FMP (63 FR 27481; May 19, 1998) added Maine ocean quahogs (locally known as Maine mahogany quahogs) to the management unit and provided for a small artisanal fishery for ocean quahogs in the waters north of 43°50′ N. lat, with an annual quota within a range of 17,000 to 100,000 Maine bu (0.6 to 3.52 million L). As specified in Amendment 10, the Maine ocean quahog quota is allocated separately from the quota specified for the ocean quahog fishery. Regulations implementing Amendment 13 to the FMP (68 FR 69970; December 16, 2003) established the authority to propose multi-year quotas with an annual quota review to be conducted by the Council to determine if the multi-year quota specifications remain appropriate for each year. NMFS then publishes the annual final quotas in the
In June 2017, the Council voted to recommend maintaining for 2018-2020 the status quo quota levels of 5.33 million bu (288 million L) for the ocean quahog fishery, 3.40 million bu (181 million L) for the Atlantic surfclam fishery, and 100,000 Maine bu (3.52 million L) for the Maine ocean quahog fishery.
We propose to implement the Council's recommended specifications for 2018 and project that the Council's recommended specifications for 2019 and 2020 will be implemented in those years. Because the Council will review available information in the interim years and adjustments to quotas may occur to account for annual catch limit (ACL) overages, the 2019 and 2020 quotas proposed are considered the projected specifications. We will provide notice in the
Tables 1 and 2 show proposed and projected quotas for the 2018-2020 Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery.
The Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog quotas are specified in “industry” bushels of 1.88 ft
The proposed 2018-2020 status quo surfclam quota was developed in June 2017 after reviewing the results of the Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) 61 for Atlantic surfclam. The surfclam quota recommendation is consistent with the SAW 61 finding that the Atlantic surfclam stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. Based on this information, the Council is recommending, and NMFS is proposing, to maintain the status quo surfclam quota of 3.40 million bu (181 million L) for 2018-2020 (see table 1).
Consistent with the Council recommendation, we are proposing the following for ocean quahog. The proposed 2018-2020 non-Maine quota for ocean quahog is the status quo quota of 5.33 million bu (288 million L).
The 2018-2020 proposed quota for Maine ocean quahogs is the status quo level of 100,000 Maine bu (3.52 million L). The proposed quota represents the maximum allowable quota under the FMP.
In June 2017, the Council voted to recommend that the minimum size limit for surfclams continue to be suspended for 2018. The minimum size limit has been suspended annually since 2005. Minimum size suspension may not be taken unless discard, catch, and biological sampling data indicate that 30 percent or more of the Atlantic surfclam resource have a shell length less than 4.75 inches (120 mm), and the overall reduced size is not attributable to harvest from beds where growth of the individual clams has been reduced because of density-dependent factors.
Commercial surfclam data for 2017 were analyzed to determine the percentage of surfclams that were smaller than the minimum size requirement. The analysis indicated that 10.4 percent of the overall commercial landings, to date, were composed of surfclams that were less than the 4.75-inch (120-mm) default minimum size. Based on the information available, the Regional Administrator concurs with the Council's recommendation, and is proposing to suspend the minimum size limit for Atlantic surfclams in the upcoming fishing year (January 1 through December 31, 2018).
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
This proposed rule is exempt from the requirements of E.O. 12866.
This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows:
For Regulatory Flexibility Analysis purposes only, NMFS has established a uniform size standard for small businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts of less than $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. In 2016, 349 fishing firms held at least one surfclam or ocean quahog permit. Using the $11 million cutoff for firms, there are 341 entities that are small and 8 that are large. In order to provide a more accurate count and description of the small directly regulated entities, landings data were evaluated to select only firms that were active in either the surfclam or the ocean quahog fishery. There are 24 active fishing firms, of which 22 are small entities and 2 are large entities.
Because the proposed quotas are status quo, the action would have no impacts on the way the fishery operates. These measures are expected to provide similar fishing opportunities in 2018-2020 when compared to earlier years. As such, revenue changes are not expected in 2018-2020 when compared to landings and revenues in 2017. Therefore, adoption of the proposed specifications are not expected to have impacts on entities participating in the fishery if landings are similar to those that occurred in 2017.
Maintaining the suspension of the surfclam minimum shell length requirement would result in no change when compared to 2014-2016. The minimum shell length requirement has been suspended each year since 2005. The proposed action would have no impact on the way the fishery operates, and is not expected to disproportionately affect small entities.
As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a petition from Nuseed Americas Inc. (Nuseed) seeking a determination of nonregulated status of canola designated as event B0050-027, which has been genetically engineered to accumulate the long chain omega-3 fatty acid known as docosahexaenoic acid in seed. The petition has been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms and products. We are making the Nuseed petition available for review and comment to help us identify potential environmental and interrelated economic issues and impacts that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service may determine should be considered in our evaluation of the petition.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 9, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
The petition is also available on the APHIS Web site at:
Dr. John Turner, Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3954; email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.
APHIS has received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 17-236-01p) from Nuseed Americas Inc. (Nuseed), seeking a determination of nonregulated status of canola (
As described in the petition, B0050-027 canola was developed through
Field tests conducted under APHIS oversight allowed for evaluation in a natural agricultural setting while imposing measures to minimize the likelihood of persistence in the environment after completion of the tests. Data are gathered on multiple parameters and used by the applicant to evaluate agronomic characteristics and product performance. These and other data are used by APHIS to determine if the new variety poses a plant pest risk.
Paragraph (d) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the
In accordance with § 340.6(d) of the regulations and our process for soliciting public input when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status for GE organisms, we are publishing this notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding the petition for a determination of nonregulated status from interested or affected persons for a period of 60 days from the date of this notice. The petition is available for public review and comment, and copies are available as indicated under
After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received during the comment period and any other relevant information. Any substantive issues identified by APHIS based on our review of the petition and our evaluation and analysis of comments will be considered in the development of our decision-making documents. As part of our decision-making process regarding a GE organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepares a plant pest risk assessment to assess its plant pest risk and the appropriate environmental documentation—either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS)—in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to provide the Agency with a review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the petition request. For petitions for which APHIS prepares an EA, APHIS will follow our published process for soliciting public comment (see footnote 1) and publish a separate notice in the
Should APHIS determine that an EIS is necessary, APHIS will complete the NEPA EIS process in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508) and APHIS' NEPA implementing regulations (7 CFR part 372).
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meetings of the Arizona Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 12:00 p.m. (Mountain Time) Monday, December 18, 2017, and 12:00 p.m. (Mountain Time), Wednesday, January 17, 2018. The purpose of the meetings is for the Committee to discuss logistics for March 9, 2018 briefing on voting rights.
The meeting will be held on Monday, December 18, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. MT, and on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. MT.
Public call information:
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meetings are available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 866-290-0883, conference ID number: 2510813. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meetings. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meetings. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meetings at
Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from these meetings may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site,
On December 12, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Shantia Hassanshahi, a/k/a Shantia Hassan Shahi, a/k/a Shahi, a/k/a Shantia Haas, a/k/a Sean Haas (“Hassanshahi”) was convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701,
On September 28, 2017, I issued an order denying Hassanshahi's export privileges, pursuant to Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”), for a period of five (5) years from the date his conviction.
Prior to issuance of the September 28, 2017 order, the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), in accordance with Section 766.25 of the Regulations, provided Hassanshahi notice of the proposed action and an opportunity to make a written submission opposing it. Notice was provided using the prison address for Hassanshahi, who received the notice letter on or about July 22, 2017, more than two months prior to the order's issuance. BIS did not receive a submission or other response to the Notice from Hassanshahi. The September 28, 2017 order—which issued based upon my review of the facts available to BIS at the time and my consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director—listed Hassanshahi's prison address as his last known address.
Following issuance of the September 28, 2017 order, BIS sought to send a copy of it to Hassanshahi at his prison address via first class mail. However, the package was returned to BIS, as it apparently arrived at the prison at or about the time Hassanshahi was being released. BIS has subsequently obtained updated information indicating that Hassanshahi's current address is 6041 Weeping Banyan Lane, Woodland Hills, CA 91367. Thus, the September 28, 2017 order needs to be amended to include the updated address information for purposes of the denial of Hassanshahi's export privileges. In addition, as set forth below, this amended order shall be delivered to Hassanshahi at his current address in Woodland Hills, California, and shall be published in the
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that imports of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE), produced in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using carbon hot-rolled steel (HRS) or cold-rolled steel (CRS) flat products manufactured in the People's Republic of China (PRC), are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on CORE from the PRC.
Applicable December 11, 2017.
Nancy Decker or Mark Hoadley, 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) 482-0196 or (202) 482-3148, respectively.
Certain domestic interested parties, Steel Dynamics, Inc. (SDI), California Steel Industries (CSI), ArcelorMittal USA LLC (AMUSA), Nucor Corporation (Nucor), United States Steel Corporation, and AK Steel Corporation (collectively, the domestic parties), filed submissions
On November 14, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of anti-circumvention inquiries on imports of CORE from Vietnam.
The products covered by these orders are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
These anti-circumvention inquiries cover CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS or CRS substrate input manufactured in the PRC and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (inquiry merchandise). These preliminary rulings apply to all shipments of inquiry merchandise on or after the date of the initiation of these inquiries. Importers and exporters of CORE produced in Vietnam using (1) HRS manufactured in Vietnam or third countries, (2) CRS manufactured in Vietnam using HRS produced in Vietnam or third countries, or (3) CRS manufactured in third countries, must certify that the HRS or CRS processed into CORE in Vietnam did not originate in the PRC, as provided for in the certifications attached to the
The Department is conducting these anti-circumvention inquiries in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act. Because Vietnam and the PRC
As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we preliminarily determine that CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS or CRS sourced from the PRC is circumventing the
As stated above, the Department has made a preliminary affirmative finding of circumvention of the
The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The Department will instruct CBP to require AD cash deposits equal to the rate established for the PRC-wide entity (199.43 percent) and CVD cash deposits equal to the rate established for the PRC all-others rate (39.05 percent). In the underlying AD and CVD investigations, the Department relied on the rates calculated for the sole cooperative respondent in each investigation to determine the PRC-wide rate of 199.43 percent in the AD investigation and the all-others rate of 39.05 percent in the CVD investigation. The rates are thus based on the cost and sales data and subsidy benefits of Chinese producers.
CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS or CRS that is not of PRC-origin is not subject to these inquiries. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise. If an importer imports CORE from Vietnam and it claims that the CORE was not produced from HRS or CRS substrate manufactured in the PRC, in order not to be subject to cash deposit requirements, the importer and exporter are required to meet the certification and documentation requirements described in Appendix II. Exporters of CORE produced from non-PRC origin HRS or CRS substrate must prepare and maintain an Exporter Certification and documentation supporting the Certification (
As provided in 19 CFR 351.307, the Department intends to verify information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last final verification report is issued in these anti-circumvention inquiries, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
The Department, consistent with section 781(e) of the Act, has notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of these preliminary determinations to include the merchandise subject to these anticircumvention inquiries within the
These determinations are issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f).
If an importer imports CORE from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and claims that the CORE was not produced from hot-rolled or cold-rolled steel substrate (substrate) manufactured in the People's Republic of China (PRC), the importer is required to complete and maintain the
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation of the corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam that entered under entry number(s) {INSERT ENTRY NUMBER(S)} and are covered by this certification;
• I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification;
• These corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled or cold-rolled steel substrate produced in the People's Republic of China (PRC);
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy ofthis certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in the United States courts regarding such entries;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY}is required to provide this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (the Department);
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the exporter's certification for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain and provide a copy of the exporter's certification and supporting records, upon request, to CBP and/or the Department;
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or the Department;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by the Department;
• I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;
• This certification was completed at the time of entry;
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the corrosion-resistant steel products identified below;
• These corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled or cold-rolled steel substrate produced in the People's Republic of China (PRC);
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in the United States courts regarding such entries;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} must provide this Exporter Certification to the U.S. importer at the time of shipment;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide a copy of this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (the Department);
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation are subject to verification by CBP and/or the Department;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by the Department;
• This certification was completed at or prior to the time of shipment.
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government;
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being
Applicable December 11, 2017.
Ryan Mullen or Carrie Bethea, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202-482-5260 or 202-482-1491, respectively.
On September 25, 2017, the Department published the
A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the
In the Department's Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (
The products covered by this investigation are cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
The subsidy programs under investigation, and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by the parties, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decisions Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix II.
The Department conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the Government of India, Goodluck India Limited (Goodluck), and Tube Investments of India Limited (Tube Investments) between October 23, and October 31, 2017.
If necessary information is not available on the record, or an interested party withholds information, fails to provide requested information in a timely manner, significantly impedes a proceeding by not providing information, or information provided cannot be verified, the Department will apply facts available, pursuant to section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For purposes of this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available and, because certain respondents did not cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
Based on our analysis of the comments received from parties and the minor corrections presented, as well as additional items discovered at verification, we made certain changes to the respondents' subsidy rate calculations set forth in the
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for each exporter/producer of the subject merchandise individually investigated,
In this investigation, the Department calculated individual countervailable subsidy rates for Goodluck and Tube Investments that are not zero,
The final subsidy rates are as follows:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As a result of our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty order and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties such to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or, alternatively, conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction.
This determination is published pursuant to section 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The scope of this investigation covers cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) of circular cross-section, 304.8 mm or more in length, in actual outside diameters less than 331mm, and regardless of wall thickness, surface finish, end finish or industry specification. The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing is a tubular product with a circular cross-sectional shape that has been cold-drawn or otherwise cold-finished after the initial tube formation in a manner that involves a change in the diameter or wall thickness of the tubing, or both. The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing may be produced from either welded (
Subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing is typically certified to meet industry specifications for cold-drawn tubing including but not limited to:
(1) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) specifications ASTM A-512, ASTM A-513 Type 3 (ASME SA513 Type 3), ASTM A-513 Type 4 (ASME SA513 Type 4), ASTM A-513 Type 5 (ASME SA513 Type 5), ASTM A-513 Type 6 (ASME SA513 Type 6), ASTM A-519 (cold-finished);
(2) SAE International (Society of Automotive Engineers) specifications SAE J524, SAE J525, SAE J2833, SAE J2614, SAE J2467, SAE J2435, SAE J2613;
(3) Aerospace Material Specification (AMS) AMS T-6736 (AMS 6736), AMS 6371, AMS 5050, AMS 5075, AMS 5062, AMS 6360, AMS 6361, AMS 6362, AMS 6371, AMS 6372, AMS 6374, AMS 6381, AMS 6415;
(4) United States Military Standards (MIL) MIL-T-5066 and MIL-T-6736;
(5) foreign standards equivalent to one of the previously listed ASTM, ASME, SAE, AMS or MIL specifications including but not limited to:
(a) German Institute for Standardization (DIN) specifications DIN 2391-2, DIN 2393-2, DIN 2394-2);
(b) European Standards (EN) EN 10305-1, EN 10305-2, EN 10305-4, EN 10305-6 and European national variations on those standards (
(c) Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) JIS G 3441 and JIS G 3445; and
(6) proprietary standards that are based on one of the above-listed standards.
The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing may also be dual or multiple certified to more than one standard. Pipe that is multiple certified as cold-drawn mechanical tubing and to other specifications not covered by this scope, is also covered by the scope of these investigations when it meets the physical description set forth above.
Steel products included in the scope of these investigations are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight.
For purposes of this scope, the place of cold-drawing determines the country of origin of the subject merchandise. Subject merchandise that is subject to minor working in a third country that occurs after drawing in one of the subject countries including, but not limited to, heat treatment, cutting to length, straightening, nondestructive testing, deburring or chamfering, remains within the scope of these investigations.
All products that meet the written physical description are within the scope of these investigations unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing order. Merchandise that meets the physical description of cold-drawn mechanical tubing above is within the scope of the investigations even if it is also dual or multiple certified to an otherwise excluded specification listed below. The following products are outside of, and/or specifically excluded from, the scope of these investigations:
(1) Cold-drawn stainless steel tubing, containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium by weight and not more than 1.2 percent of carbon by weight;
(2) products certified to one or more of the ASTM, ASME or American Petroleum Institute (API) specifications listed below:
• ASTM A-53;
• ASTM A-106;
• ASTM A-179 (ASME SA 179);
• ASTM A-192 (ASME SA 192);
• ASTM A-209 (ASME SA 209);
• ASTM A-210 (ASME SA 210);
• ASTM A-213 (ASME SA 213);
• ASTM A-334 (ASME SA 334);
• ASTM A-423 (ASME SA 423);
• ASTM A-498;
• ASTM A-496 (ASME SA 496);
• ASTM A-199;
• ASTM A-500;
• ASTM A-556;
• ASTM A-565;
• API 5L; and
• API 5CT
The products subject to the investigations are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.31.3000, 7304.31.6050, 7304.51.1000, 7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.50.5030. Subject merchandise may also enter under numbers 7306.30.1000 and 7306.50.1000. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), as provided in section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act). The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. For more information on the estimated subsidy rates,
Applicable December 11, 2017.
Shanah Lee at (202) 482-6386 or Alex Rosen at (202) 482-7814, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The Department published the
The product covered by this investigation is cold-drawn mechanical tubing from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In the Department's Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix II.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in September 2017, the Department verified the subsidy information reported by respondents Jiangsu Hongyi Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Hongyi) and Zhangjiagang Huacheng Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Huacheng I&E). We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents.
In making this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available. As discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, because the Government of the People's Republic of China (GOC) did not act to the best of its ability in responding to certain of the Department's requests for information, we drew adverse inferences, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act.
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections accepted at verification, we made certain changes to the respondents' subsidy rate calculations since the
Due to the timing of the petitioners' critical circumstance allegation and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(b) and (e) the Department did not make a preliminary critical circumstances determination.
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we calculated a countervailing duty (CVD) rate for each individually-investigated producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. Consistent with section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated an estimated “all-others” rate for exporters/producers not individually examined. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act provides that the “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the countervailable subsidy rates established for individually investigated exporters/producers, excluding any rates that are zero or
We determine the total estimated
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties within five days of the public announcement of this final determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from the PRC, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 25, 2017, the date of the publication of the
Section 705(c)(4) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our final affirmative CVD determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, we will issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, CVDs on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/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 that is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
The scope of this investigation covers cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) of circular cross-section, 304.8 mm or more in length, in actual outside diameters less than 331mm, and regardless of wall thickness, surface finish, end finish or industry specification. The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing is a tubular product with a circular cross-sectional shape that has been cold-drawn or otherwise cold-finished after the initial tube formation in a manner that involves a change in the diameter or wall thickness of the tubing, or both. The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing may be produced from either welded (
Subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing is typically certified to meet industry specifications for cold-drawn tubing including but not limited to:
(1) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) specifications ASTM A-512, ASTM A-513 Type 3 (ASME SA513 Type 3), ASTM A-513 Type 4 (ASME SA513 Type 4), ASTM A-513 Type 5 (ASME SA513 Type 5), ASTM A-513 Type 6 (ASME SA513 Type 6), ASTM A-519 (cold-finished);
(2) SAE International (Society of Automotive Engineers) specifications SAE J524, SAE J525, SAE J2833, SAE J2614, SAE J2467, SAE J2435, SAE J2613;
(3) Aerospace Material Specification (AMS) AMS T-6736 (AMS 6736), AMS 6371, AMS 5050, AMS 5075, AMS 5062, AMS 6360, AMS 6361, AMS 6362, AMS 6371, AMS 6372, AMS 6374, AMS 6381, AMS 6415;
(4) United States Military Standards (MIL) MIL-T-5066 and MIL-T-6736;
(5) foreign standards equivalent to one of the previously listed ASTM, ASME, SAE, AMS or MIL specifications including but not limited to:
(a) German Institute for Standardization (DIN) specifications DIN 2391-2, DIN 2393-2, DIN 2394-2);
(b) European Standards (EN) EN 10305-1, EN 10305-2, EN 10305-4, EN 10305-6 and European national variations on those standards (
(c) Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) JIS G 3441 and JIS G 3445; and
(6) proprietary standards that are based on one of the above-listed standards.
The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing may also be dual or multiple certified to more than one standard. Pipe that is multiple certified as cold-drawn mechanical tubing and to other specifications not covered by this scope, is also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical description set forth above.
Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight.
For purposes of this scope, the place of cold-drawing determines the country of origin of the subject merchandise. Subject merchandise that is subject to minor working in a third country that occurs after drawing in one of the subject countries including, but not limited to, heat treatment, cutting to length, straightening, nondestructive testing, deburring or chamfering, remains within the scope of this investigation.
All products that meet the written physical description are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing order. Merchandise that meets the physical description of cold-drawn mechanical tubing above is within the scope of the investigation even if it is also dual or multiple certified to an otherwise excluded specification listed below. The following products are outside of, and/or specifically excluded from, the scope of this investigation:
(1) Cold-drawn stainless steel tubing, containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium by weight and not more than 1.2 percent of carbon by weight;
(2) products certified to one or more of the ASTM, ASME or American Petroleum Institute (API) specifications listed below:
• ASTM A-53;
• ASTM A-106;
• ASTM A-179 (ASME SA 179);
• ASTM A-192 (ASME SA 192);
• ASTM A-209 (ASME SA 209);
• ASTM A-210 (ASME SA 210);
• ASTM A-213 (ASME SA 213);
• ASTM A-334 (ASME SA 334);
• ASTM A-423 (ASME SA 423);
• ASTM A-498;
• ASTM A-496 (ASME SA 496);
• ASTM A-199;
• ASTM A-500;
• ASTM A-556;
• ASTM A-565;
• API 5L; and
• API 5CT
The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.31.3000, 7304.31.6050, 7304.51.1000, 7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.50.5030. Subject merchandise may also enter under numbers 7306.30.1000 and 7306.50.1000. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that imports of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (CRS), produced in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using carbon hot-rolled steel (HRS) manufactured in the People's Republic of China (PRC), are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on CRS from the PRC.
Applicable December 11, 2017.
Victoria Cho, Tyler Weinhold, or John Drury, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5075; (202) 482-1121; or (202) 482-0195, respectively.
Certain domestic interested parties, Steel Dynamics, Inc. (SDI), California Steel Industries (CSI), ArcelorMittal USA LLC (AMUSA), Nucor Corporation (Nucor), United States Steel Corporation, and AK Steel Corporation (collectively, the domestic parties), filed submissions
On November 17, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of anti-circumvention inquiries on imports of CRS from Vietnam.
The products covered by these orders are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
These anti-circumvention inquiries cover cold-rolled steel produced in Vietnam from HRS substrate input manufactured in the PRC and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (inquiry merchandise). These preliminary rulings apply to all shipments of inquiry merchandise on or after the date of the initiation of these inquiries.
The Department is conducting these anti-circumvention inquiries in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act. Because Vietnam and the PRC
As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we preliminarily determine that CRS produced in Vietnam from HRS sourced from the PRC is circumventing the
As stated above, the Department has made a preliminary affirmative finding of circumvention of the
The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. In the underlying AD and CVD investigations, there were no cooperating respondents and, accordingly, all producers/exporters, as appropriate, of subject merchandise received the same AD rate of 199.76 and CVD rate of 256.44. Therefore, the Department is using these rates, the only rates on the records of these proceedings. Thus, the Department will instruct CBP to require AD cash deposits equal to the rate of 199.76 percent and CVD cash deposits equal to the rate 256.44 percent.
CRS produced in Vietnam from HRS that is not of PRC-origin is not subject to these inquiries. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise. If an importer imports CRS from Vietnam and it claims that the CRS was not produced from HRS substrate manufactured in the PRC, in order not to be subject to cash deposit requirements, the importer and exporter are required to meet the certification and documentation requirements described in Appendix II. Exporters of CRS produced from non-PRC origin HRS substrate must prepare and maintain an Exporter Certification and documentation supporting the Certification (
As provided in 19 CFR 351.307, the Department intends to verify information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last final verification report is issued in these anti-circumvention inquiries, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
The Department, consistent with section 781(e) of the Act, has notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of these preliminary determinations to include the merchandise subject to these anti-circumvention inquiries within the
These determinations are issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f).
If an importer imports certain cold-rolled steel flat products (CRS) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and claims that the CRS was not produced from hot-rolled steel substrate (substrate) manufactured in the People's Republic of China (PRC), the importer is required to complete and maintain the importer certification attached hereto as Appendix III. The importer and exporter are required to maintain the exporter certification attached hereto as Appendix IV. The importer certification must be completed, signed, and dated at the time of the entry of the CRS product. The exporter certification must be completed, signed, and dated at the time of shipment of the relevant entries. For shipments and/or entries on or after November 4, 2016, but before the publication of this notice in the
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation of the cold-rolled steel flat products produced in Vietnam that entered under entry number(s) {INSERT ENTRY NUMBER(S)} and are covered by this certification;
• I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification;
• These cold-rolled steel flat products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled steel substrate produced in the People's Republic of China (PRC):
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in the United States courts regarding such entries;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (the Department);
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the exporter's certification for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain and provide a copy of the exporter's certification and supporting records, upon request, to CBP and/or the Department;
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or the Department;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by the Department;
• I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;
• This certification was completed at the time of entry;
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the cold-rolled steel flat products identified below.
• These cold-rolled steel flat products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled steel substrate produced in the People's Republic of China (PRC):
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in the United States courts regarding such entries;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} must provide this Exporter Certification to the U.S. importer at the time of shipment;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide a copy of this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (the Department);
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation are subject to verification by CBP and/or the Department;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by the Department;
• This certification was completed at or prior to the time of shipment;
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before February 9, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Kate Spidalieri (
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
National marine sanctuary regulations at 15 CFR part 922 list specific activities that are prohibited in national marine sanctuaries. These regulations also state that otherwise prohibited activities are permissible if a permit is issued by the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS). Persons desiring a permit must submit an application, and anyone obtaining a permit is generally required to submit one or more reports on the activity allowed under the permit.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 15 CFR part 922 form the basis for this collection of information. This information is required by ONMS to protect and manage sanctuary resources as required by the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431
Depending on the permit being requested, various applications, reports, and telephone calls may be required from applicants. Applications and reports can be submitted via email, fax, or traditional mail. Applicants are encouraged to use electronic means to apply for permits and submit reports whenever possible.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of U.S. fishing opportunities.
We are announcing 2018 fishing opportunities in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Regulatory Area. This action is necessary to make fishing privileges in the NAFO Regulatory Area available on an equitable basis to the extent possible. The intended effect of this notice is to alert U.S. fishing vessels of the NAFO fishing opportunities, to relay the available quotas available to U.S. participants, and to outline the process and requirements for vessels to apply to participate in the 2018 NAFO fishery.
Valid from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018. Expressions of interest regarding fishing opportunities in NAFO will be accepted through December 26, 2017.
Expressions of interest regarding U.S. fishing opportunities in NAFO should be made in writing to John K. Bullard, U.S. Commissioner to
Information relating to chartering vessels of another NAFO Contracting Party, transferring NAFO fishing opportunities to or from another NAFO Contracting Party, or U.S. participation in NAFO is available from Patrick E. Moran in the NMFS Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (phone: 301-427-8370, fax: 301-713-2313, email:
Additional information about NAFO fishing opportunities, NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures (CEM), and the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA) Permit required for NAFO participation is available from Shannah Jaburek, in the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office at 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 (phone: 978-282-8456, fax: 978-281-9135, email:
Shannah Jaburek, (978) 282-8456.
The United States is a Contracting Party to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization or NAFO. NAFO is an intergovernmental fisheries science and management body whose convention applies to most fishery resources in international waters of the Northwest Atlantic, except salmon, tunas/marlins, whales, and sedentary species such as shellfish. Currently, NAFO has 12 contracting parties from North America, Europe, Asia, and the Caribbean. NAFO's Fisheries Commission is responsible for the management and conservation of the fishery resources in the Regulatory Area (waters outside the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)). Figure 1 shows the NAFO Regulatory Area.
As a Contracting Party within NAFO, the United States may be allocated catch quotas or effort allocations for certain species in specific areas within the NAFO Regulatory Area and may participate in fisheries for other species for which we have not received a specific quota. For most stocks for which the United States does not receive a specific allocation, an open allocation, known as the “Others” allocation under the Convention, is shared access between all NAFO Contracting Parties.
Additional information on NAFO can be found online at
This notice announces the fishing opportunities available to U.S. vessels in NAFO regulatory waters, including specific 2018 stocks for which the United States has an allocation under NAFO, and fishing opportunities under the `Other' NAFO allocations. This notice also outlines the application process and other requirements for U.S. vessels that wish to participate in the 2018 NAFO fisheries.
The principal species managed by NAFO are Atlantic cod, yellowtail and witch flounders, Acadian redfish, American plaice, Greenland halibut, white hake, capelin, shrimp, skates, and
The TACs that may be available to U.S. vessels for stocks where the United States has not been allocated quota (
Note that the United States shares these allocations with other NAFO Contracting Parties, and access is on a first come, first served basis. Directed fishing is prohibited by NAFO when the “Others” quota for a particular stock has been fully harvested.
Additional directed quota for these and other stocks managed within the NAFO Regulatory Area could be made available to U.S. vessels through industry-initiated chartering arrangements or government-to-government transfers of quota from other NAFO Contracting Parties.
U.S. vessels participating in NAFO may also retain bycatch of NAFO managed species to the following maximum amounts as outlined in Article 6 of the 2018 CEM. The percentage, by weight, is calculated as a percent of each stock of the total catch of species listed in Annex I.A (
1. Cod, Division 3M: 1,250 kg or 5 percent, whichever is more;
2. Witch Flounder, Division 3M: 1,250 kg or 5 percent, whichever is more;
3. Redfish, Division 3LN: 1,250 kg or 5 percent, whichever is more;
4. Cod, Division 3NO: 1,000 kg or 4 percent, whichever is more;
5. For all other Annex I.A stocks where the U.S. has no specific quota the bycatch limit is, 2,500 kg or 10 percent unless a ban on fishing applies or the quota for the stock has been fully utilized. If the fishery for the stock is closed or a retention ban applies, the permitted bycatch limit is 1,250 kg or 5 percent; and
6. For the directed yellowtail flounder fishery in Divisions 3LNO (where the United States has a 1,000 mt yellowtail flounder allocation in 2018) vessels may retain 15 percent of American plaice.
Opportunities to fish for species not listed above (
Expressions of interest to fish for any or all of the 2018 U.S. fishing opportunities in NAFO described above will be considered from all U.S. fishing interests (
Expressions of interest should include a detailed description of anticipated fishing operations in 2018. Descriptions should include, at a minimum:
• Intended target species;
• Proposed dates of fishing operations;
• Vessel(s) to be used to harvest fish, including the name, registration, and home port of the intended harvesting vessel(s);
• The number of fishing personnel and their nationality involved in vessel operations;
• Intended landing port or ports; including for ports outside of the United States, whether or not the product will be shipped to the United States for processing;
• Processing facilities to be used;
• Target market for harvested fish; and,
• Evidence demonstrating the ability of the applicant to successfully prosecute fishing operations in the NAFO Regulatory Area, in accordance with NAFO management measures. This may include descriptions of previously successful NAFO or domestic fisheries participation.
Note that applicant U.S. vessels must possess or be eligible to receive a valid High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA) permit. HSFCA permits are available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office. Information regarding other requirements for fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area is detailed below and is also available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (see
U.S. applicants wishing to harvest U.S. allocations using a vessel from another NAFO Contracting Party, or hoping to enter a chartering arrangement with a vessel from another NAFO Contracting Party, should see below for details on U.S. and NAFO requirements for such activities. If you have further questions regarding what information is required in an expression of interest, please contact Patrick Moran (see
Applicants demonstrating the greatest benefits to the United States through their intended operations will be most successful. Such benefits may include:
• The use of U.S vessels and crew to harvest fish in the NAFO Regulatory Area;
• Detailed, positive impacts on U.S. employment as a result of the fishing, transport, or processing operations;
• Use of U.S. processing facilities;
• Transport, marketing, and sales of product within the United States;
• Other ancillary, demonstrable benefits to U.S. businesses as a result of the fishing operation; and
• Documentation of the physical characteristics and economics of the fishery for future use by the U.S. fishing industry.
Other factors we may consider include but are not limited to: A documented history of successful fishing operations in NAFO or other similar fisheries; the history of compliance by the vessel with the NAFO CEM or other domestic and international regulatory requirements, including potential disqualification of an applicant with repeated compliance issues; and, for those applicants without NAFO or other international fishery history, a description of demonstrated harvest, processing, marketing, and regulatory compliance within domestic fisheries.
To ensure equitable access by U.S. fishing interests, we may provide additional guidance or procedures, or we may issue regulations designed to allocate fishing interests to one or more U.S. applicants from among qualified applicants. After reviewing all requests for allocations submitted, we may also decide not to grant any allocations if it is determined that no requests adequately meet the criteria described in this notice.
We will provide written responses to all applicants notifying them of their application status and, as needed for successful applicants, allocation awards will be made as quickly as possible so that we may notify NAFO and take other necessary actions to facilitate operations in the regulatory area by U.S. fishing interests. Successful applicants will receive additional information from us on permit conditions and applicable regulations before starting 2018 fishing operations.
In the event that an approved U.S. entity does not, is not able to, or is not expected to fish an allocation, or part thereof, awarded to them, NMFS may reallocate to other approved U.S. entities. If requested, approved U.S. entities must provide updated fishing plans and/or schedules. A U.S. entity may not consolidate or transfer allocations without prior approval from NMFS.
Under the bilateral arrangement with Canada, the United States may enter into a chartering (or other) arrangement with a Canadian vessel to harvest the transferred yellowtail flounder. For other NAFO-regulated species listed in Annexes I.A and I.B, the United States may enter into a chartering arrangement with a vessel from any other NAFO Contracting Party. Additionally, any U.S. vessel or fishing operation may enter into a chartering arrangement with any other vessel or business from a NAFO Contracting Party. The United States and the other Contracting Party involved in a chartering arrangement must agree to the charter, and the NAFO Executive Secretary must be advised of the chartering arrangement before the commencement of any charter fishing operations. Any U.S. vessel or fishing operation interested in making use of the chartering provisions of NAFO must provide at least the following information: The name and registration number of the U.S. vessel; a copy of the charter agreement; a detailed fishing plan; a written letter of consent from the applicable NAFO Contracting Party; the date from which the vessel is authorized to commence fishing; and the duration of the charter (not to exceed six months).
Expressions of interest using another NAFO Contracting Party vessel under charter should be accompanied by a detailed description of anticipated benefits to the United States, as described above. Additional detail on chartering arrangements can be found in Article 26 of the CEM (
Any vessel from another Contracting Party wishing to enter into a chartering arrangement with the United States must be in full current compliance with the requirements outlined in the NAFO Convention and CEM. These requirements include, but are not limited to, submission of the following reports to the NAFO Executive Secretary:
• Notification that the vessel is authorized by its flag state to fish within the NAFO Regulatory Area during 2018;
• Provisional monthly catch reports for all vessels of that NAFO Contracting Party operating in the NAFO Regulatory Area;
• Daily catch reports for each day fished by the subject vessel within the Regulatory Area;
• Observer reports within 30 days following the completion of a fishing trip; and
• An annual statement of actions taken by its flag state to comply with the NAFO Convention.
The United States may also consider the vessel's previous compliance with NAFO bycatch, reporting, and other provisions, as outlined in the NAFO CEM, before authorizing the chartering arrangement.
Under NAFO rules in effect for 2018, the United States may transfer fishing opportunities by mutual agreement with another NAFO Contracting Party and with prior notification to the NAFO Executive Secretary. An applicant may request to arrange for any of the previously described U.S. opportunities to be transferred to another NAFO party, although such applications will likely be given lesser priority than those that involve more direct harvesting or processing by U.S. entities. Applications to arrange for a transfer of U.S. fishing opportunities should contain a letter of consent from the receiving NAFO Contracting Party, and should also be accompanied by a detailed description of anticipated benefits to the United States. As in the case of chartering operations, the United States may also consider a NAFO Contracting Party's previous compliance with NAFO bycatch, reporting, and other provisions, as outlined in the NAFO CEM, before entering agreeing to a transfer.
Under NAFO rules in effect for 2018, the United States may receive transfers of additional fishing opportunities from other NAFO Contracting Parties. We are required to provide a letter consenting to such a transfer and must provide notice to the NAFO Executive Secretary. In the event that an applicant is able to arrange for the transfer of additional fishing opportunities from another NAFO Contracting Party to the United States, the U.S. may agree to facilitate such a transfer. However, there is no guarantee that if an applicant has facilitated the transfer of quota from another Contracting Party to the United States, such applicant will receive authorization to fish for such quota. If quota is transferred to the United States, we may need to solicit new applications for the use of such quota. All applicable NAFO requirements for transfers must be met. As in the case of chartering operations, the United States may also consider a NAFO Contracting Party's
For more details on NAFO requirements for chartering and transferring NAFO allocations, contact Patrick Moran (see
U.S. applicant vessels must be in possession of, or obtain, a valid HSFCA permit, which is available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office. All permitted vessels must comply with any conditions of this permit and all applicable provisions of the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries and the CEM. We reserve the right to impose additional permit conditions that ensure compliance with the NAFO Convention and the CEM, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and any other applicable law.
The CEM provisions include, but are not limited to:
• Maintaining a fishing logbook with NAFO-designated entries (Annex II.A and Article 28);
• Adhering to NAFO hail system requirements (Annexes II.D and II.F; Article 28; Article 30 part B);
• Carrying an approved onboard observer for each trip consistent with requirements of Article 30 part A;
• Maintaining and using a functioning, autonomous vessel monitoring system authorized by issuance of the HSFCA permit as required by Articles 29 and 30; and
• Complying with all relevant NAFO CEM requirements, including minimum fish sizes, gear, bycatch retention, and per-tow move on provisions for exceeding bycatch limits in any one haul/set.
Further details regarding U.S. and NAFO requirements are available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, and can also be found in the 2018 NAFO CEM on the Internet (
Vessels issued valid HSFCA permits under 50 CFR part 300 are exempt from certain domestic fisheries regulations governing fisheries in the Northeast United States found in 50 CFR 648. Specifically, vessels are exempt from the Northeast multispecies and monkfish permit, mesh size, effort-control, and possession limit restrictions (§§ 648.4, 648.80, 648.82, 648.86, 648.87, 648.91, 648.92, and 648.94), while transiting the U.S. exclusive economic zone with multispecies and/or monkfish on board the vessel, or landing multispecies and/or monkfish in U.S. ports that were caught while fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area. These exemptions are conditional on the following requirements: The vessel operator has a letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator on board the vessel; for the duration of the trip, the vessel fishes, except for transiting purposes, exclusively in the NAFO Regulatory Area and does not harvest fish in, or possess fish harvested in, or from, the U.S. EEZ; when transiting the U.S. EEZ, all gear is properly stowed and not available for immediate use as defined under § 648.2; and the vessel operator complies with the provisions, conditions, and restrictions specified on the HSFCA permit and all NAFO CEM while fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before February 9, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Kate Spidalieri (
This request is for a revision and extension of a currently approved information collection.
Section 315 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1445a) allows the Secretary of Commerce to establish one or more advisory councils to provide advice to the Secretary regarding the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries. Executive Order 13178 similarly established a Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Council pursuant to the NMSA for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve. Councils are individually chartered for each site to meet its specific needs. Once an advisory council has been chartered, a sanctuary superintendent starts a process to recruit members for that council by providing notice to the public and requesting interested parties to apply for the available seat(s) (
Two application forms are currently associated with this information collection: (a) National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Application form; and (b) National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Youth Seat Application form. These application forms are currently being revised to ensure consistency between forms, as well as clarify the information and supplemental materials to be submitted by applicants. Application form instructions will specify requirements imposed upon the agency when reviewing applicants as potential council members or alternates, including the need to assess potential conflicts of interest (or other issues) and the applicant's status as a federally registered lobbyist. Specific questions posed to applicants will be reordered, reworded and, at times, condensed to improve the organization of applicant responses and, thereby, simplify the applicant review process.
Complete applications may be submitted electronically via email (with attachments), by mail, or by facsimile transmission.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Department of Defense.
Notice of an extension of a comprehensive demonstration project for all Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) services, including the tiered-model of ABA, for all TRICARE eligible beneficiaries diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
This notice provides a five-year extension to the Military Health System's demonstration project entitled Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration (“Autism Care
Demonstration”). The initial purpose of the Autism Care Demonstration (ACD) was to further analyze and evaluate the appropriateness of the ABA services tiered delivery model under TRICARE (the medical benefit) in light of current and anticipated Behavior Analyst Certification Board guidelines. Based on the agency's experience in administering ABA services under the ACD, including engagement with beneficiaries, providers, advocates, associations, and other payers, much more analysis and experience is required in order to determine the appropriate characterization of ABA services as a medical treatment, or other modalities, under the TRICARE program coverage requirements—to include further research and evaluation of the results, whether Board Certified Behavior Analysts may appropriately be recognized and treated as independent TRICARE authorized providers of a proven medical benefit, and what authorities are required to add ABA services as a permanent benefit under the TRICARE program—whether as a proven medical benefit or otherwise.
The demonstration will continue through December 31, 2023.
Defense Health Agency, Health Plan Operations, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042.
For questions pertaining to this
Under the demonstration, the Department implemented a provider model that allows reimbursement for ABA services rendered by providers who are not otherwise eligible for reimbursement. Additionally, since the implementation of the demonstration, Congress directed the agency to add outcome measures as a requirement to the program. Through revisions and accomodations to obtain achievable information, these outcome measures are aimed at assessing individual progress for each beneficiary, and provide limited utility to describe the population, and the program, as a whole. To acquire additional research results that are essential to evaluating the nature and efficacy of ABA services, the appropriate characterization of ABA providers, and the optimum means to administer coverage of ABA services under TRICARE, the agency is working with the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) to award a contract to a research group to analyze the TRICARE ACD participants' outcome measures, particularly assessing their responses to ABA service delivery as a total population. The CDMRP research study will be a descriptive analysis that has the potential to be the largest sample population of ABA services for the diagnosis of ASD in the entire body of research literature, therefore contributing significantly to the understanding of the efficacy of ABA service delivery. By extending the demonstration, the government will not only gain information about what TRICARE beneficiaries are receiving under the ACD and respective outcomes, the government will also gain greater insight and understanding of ASD in the TRICARE population, ABA services being delivered to TRICARE beneficiaries, and outcomes data.
Additionally, as a next phase to improve the ABA services benefit, the Department will consult with stakeholders and utilize best practices identified in commercial and Medicaid plans as a guide to explore the potential for a single, nationwide contract to manage ABA service delivery under the ongoing authority of the ACD. This reflects a beneficiary-centric approach with many advantages that will provide improved coordination of benefits nationwide leading to improved consistency, quality, and beneficiary experience.
A determination of the future of ABA under TRICARE and the efficacy of ABA services as a medical benefit would be premature at this point for the reasons stated above. It is therefore necessary for the Department to extend the ACD beyond its December 31, 2018, expiration in order to implement this multi-track approach. This approach will advance the comprehensive evaluation of ABA services for TRICARE coverage for the duration of the CDRMP research study under a single benefit contract. This extension will also ensure continuity of care for beneficiaries currently receiving ABA services, and for those beneficiaries who will be diagnosed with ASD in the future, for the duration of these ongoing initiatives and a reasonable time thereafter for analysis and appropriate TRICARE program changes, to include seeking any additional authorities that may be required.
On June 16, 2014, the Department of Defense published a notice in the
ABA services are currently provided through the ACD and managed by the existing TRICARE regional managed care support contractors. This approach enabled TRICARE to quickly expand access to ABA services for over 14,000 children diagnosed with ASD and manage a comprehensive ABA benefit program. However, in efforts to manage ABA services similar to the TRICARE Basic medical benefit, many rules have been modified, or exceptions have been made, such as diagnosis and referral procedures, ABA provider qualifications and credentialing, safety and quality management reviews, and reimbursement rate methodology. Additionally, ABA services may involve a lengthy period of care and as families move or transfer across TRICARE regions, many experience inconsistencies in how the ABA services benefit is managed between TRICARE contracts. Based on lessons learned, DHA now seeks to improve ABA services delivery with a more unified approach to reduce variation and ensure ABA services are directed to beneficiaries in a manner that maximizes clinically necessary benefits to each child with minimal disruptions.
The Department is committed to ensuring all TRICARE-eligible beneficiaries diagnosed with ASD reach their maximum potential, and that all treatment provided supports this goal. The need for effective treatment for the diagnosis of ASD is unquestioned, and while there is need for more scientific evidence, ABA remains the most widely accepted intervention. Therefore, the Department is pursuing a more effective method of delivering and validating the effectiveness of these services. The Department is exploring the potential for a single, nationwide contract, administered by a private sector health care company, with specialized experience and expertise in providing ABA services, will significantly improve the provision of ABA services to military beneficiaries diagnosed with ASD.
Consequently, the Department has determined that extension of the demonstration is both in the best interest of TRICARE beneficiaries diagnosed with ASD, and necessary to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the delivery model employed by the demonstration while putting in-place a nationwide contract. This extension will determine whether the ACD meets its stated purpose and provide the Department with consistent and reliable information necessary to make informed decisions regarding the provision of the ABA services benefit. This extension will allow the Department to make a formal decision regarding the use of that delivery model in the long-term. The demonstration continues to be authorized by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1092.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-58 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Singapore has requested to purchase forty (40) GBU-10 Paveway II Laser Guided Bomb (LGB) units, consisting of: MXU-651B/B Air Foil Groups (AFG), MAU-209C/B or MAU-169L/B Computer Control Groups (CCG), MK-84 or BLU-117B/B bomb bodies; eighty four (84) GBU-12 Paveway II LGB units, consisting of: MXU-650C/B AFG, MAU-209C/B or MAU-168L/B CCGs, MK-82 or BLU-111B/B bomb bodies; and sixty (60) FMU-152 or FMU-139D/B fuzes. Also included are AIM-120 Telemetry Kits; target drones; High-Bandwidth Compact Telemetry Module kits; exercise participation support; weapons, Electronic Combat International Security Assistance Program (ECISAP), and systems support; medical support; vehicle and ferry support; airlift and aerial refueling; individual equipment; maintenance, spare and repair parts; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor, logistics, and technical support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated cost is $415 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a critical regional partner that has been, and continues to be, an important force for economic progress in Southeast Asia.
This potential sale will continue to improve Singapore's ability to develop mission-ready and experienced pilots to support its F-15 aircraft inventory. The well-established pilot proficiency training program at Mountain Home Air Force Base will support professional interaction and enhance operational interoperability with U.S. Forces. Singapore will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and support into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
There is no prime contractor involved in this proposed sale. Manpower support will be determined through competition with defense articles anticipated to come from U.S. stocks, as needed. Sources of supply will award contracts when necessary to provide the defense articles if items are not available from U.S. stock or are considered long lead-time away. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Singapore.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. This potential sale will involve the release of sensitive technology to the Government of Singapore, including Paveway II (PWII) Laser Guided Bombs (LGB) GBU-10 and -12. The PWII LGBUs have an overall export classification of CONFIDENTIAL. The related subcomponents: MXU-209 C/B or MAU-169 L/B control and guidance kits, FMU-152 or FMU-139D/B fuzes, MK-82 or BLU-111 B/B bomb bodies, and MK-84 or BLU-117 B/B bomb bodies are UNCLASSIFIED.
2. The PWII LGB, is a maneuverable, free-fall weapon that guides to a spot of laser energy reflected off of the target. The LGB is delivered like a normal general purpose (GP) bomb and the semi-active guidance corrects for many of the normal errors inherent in any delivery system. Laser designation for the LGB can be provided by a variety of laser target markers or designators. An LGB consists of a Computer Control Group (CCG) that is not warhead specific and warhead specific Air Foil Group (AFG) that attaches to the nose and tail of a GP bomb body. The PWII can use either the FMU-152 or FMU-139D/B fuzes. Singapore currently has FMU-152 fuzes available and will be purchasing additional compatible fuzes to support new munitions requirements.
a. GBU-10 is a 2,000lb (MK-84 or BLU-117 B/B) GP bomb body fitted with the MXU-651 AFG, and MAU-209C/B or MAU-169 L/B CCG to guide to its laser designated target.
b. GBU-12 is a 500lb (MK-82 or BLU-111 B/B) GP bomb body fitted with the MXU-650 AFG, and MAU-209C/B or MAU-168L/B CCGs to guide to its laser designated target.
3. FMU-152 fuzes are a multifunction, multiple delay fuze system with hardened target capabilities that provide arming and fuzing functions for general purpose and penetrating, unitary warheads. The fuze can set or reset during munitions buildup, aircraft loading, ground
4. AIM-120 Telemetry Kits Non-Development Item/Airborne Instrument Units (NDI/AIU) hardware are UNCLASSIFIED. The NDU/AIU includes a telemetry transmitter, a flight termination system, a C-band beacon and upper S-band capability to include antenna. The NDI/AIU will be used for Singapore's participation in Continental United States (CONUS) based exercises and shall not be released, transferred, or exported to Singapore. All data shall only be collected, transmitted or reviewed by qualified U.S. personnel.
5. The High-Bandwidth Compact Telemetry Modules (HCTM) and Telemetry Cable Kits hardware are UNCLASSIFIED. HCTM are used for Joint Direct Attack Munition integration, developmental, or operational testing; and will be used for Singapore's participation in Continental United States (CONUS) based exercises and shall not be released, transferred, or exported to Singapore. All data shall only be collected, transmitted or reviewed by qualified U.S. personnel.
6. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
7. A determination has been made that Singapore can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary to further the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
8. All defense articles and services listed on this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Singapore.
Take notice that on November 28, 2017, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, Southern Company Services, Inc., acting as agent for Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company (collectively, Southern Companies), filed a petition for declaratory order and request to hold proceedings in abeyance. The filing seeks clarification regarding whether Southern Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff provides the flexibility to allow for a ratemaking adjustment so as to avoid a potential violation of normalization requirements, and the filing is made contingent upon, and requests that this proceeding be held in abeyance pending the receipt of, a Private Letter Ruling being sought from the Internal Revenue Service regarding the potential normalization violation.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding 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) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioners.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-598 (Self-Certification for Entities Seeking Exempt Wholesale Generator Status or Foreign Utility Company Status).
Comments on the collection of information are due February 9, 2018.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC18-1-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
EPAct 2005 repealed the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA 1935),
An EWG is defined as “any person engaged directly, or indirectly through one or more affiliates . . . and exclusively in the business of owning or operating, or both owning and operating, all or part of one or more eligible facilities and selling electric energy at wholesale.”
An EWG, FUCO, or its representative seeking to self-certify its status as an EWG or FUCO must file with the Commission a notice of self-certification (FERC-598) demonstrating that it satisfies the definition of EWG or FUCO. In the case of EWGs, the person filing a notice of self-certification must also file a copy of the notice of self-certification with the state regulatory authority of the state in which the facility is located and that person must also represent to the Commission in its submission that it has filed a copy of the notice with the appropriate state regulatory authority.
Submission of the information collected by FERC-598 is necessary for the Commission to carry out its responsibilities under section 1266(a) of EPAct 2005.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Marlow Hydro, LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on October 13, 2017. Marlow Hydro, LLC provided public notice of its request on October 12, 2017. In a letter dated December 5, 2017, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Marlow Hydro, LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources, as required by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Marlow Hydro, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Marlow Hydro, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a subsequent license for Project No. 3309. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.20 each application for a subsequent license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by November 30, 2020.
p. Register online at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of finding of adequacy.
In this notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public that we find the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for volatile organic compounds (VOCs
This finding is applicable December 26, 2017.
Michael Leslie, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6680,
Throughout this document, whenever “we”, “us” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Today's notice is an announcement of a finding that we have already made. On September 26, 2017, EPA sent a letter to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, stating that the 2030 MVEBs contained in the maintenance plan for the 2008 Ozone Standard for Metro-East area are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. EPA announced receipt of these MVEBs on its transportation conformity Web site, and did not receive any comments during the public comment period. The finding of adequacy is available at EPA's conformity Web site:
The 2030 MVEBs, in tons per day (tpd), for VOCs and NO
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether they conform. Conformity to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs are adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and is also a separate action from EPA's evaluation of and decision whether to approve a proposed SIP revision.
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Experimental Use Permits (EUPs) for Pesticides,” and identified by EPA ICR No. 0276.16 and OMB Control No. 2070-0040, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2018. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before February 9, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0628, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Connie Hernandez, Field and External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs (7560P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is an increase of 11 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects EPA's adjustment as a result of increased EUP submissions by program participants, as well as higher wage rates for managerial, technical, and clerical occupations. This change is an adjustment.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final order on a petition to object to a state operating permit.
The EPA Administrator signed an order, dated October 16, 2017, denying the petition submitted by the Sierra Club (Petitioner) objecting to the proposed Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit issued to PacifiCorp Energy. The Order responds to the April 11, 2016 petition objecting to the proposed title V operating permit #1500101002 (Hunter Permit) issued by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) for the Hunter Power Plant in Castle Dale, Emery County, Utah. The Order constitutes a final action on the petition.
You may review copies of the Order, the petition, and other supporting information at the EPA Region 8 Office, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the
Patrick Wauters, Air Program (8P-AR), EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period. Pursuant to sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the Act, a petition for judicial review of those portions of the Order that deny issues in the petition may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days from the date this notice appears in the
The EPA received a petition from the Petitioner, requesting that the EPA object to the proposed Hunter Permit for the Hunter Power Plant. The petitioner alleges that the Hunter Permit fails to ensure compliance with applicable requirements under the CAA in that: (1) The permit fails to include Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements; (2) the permit includes Plantwide Applicability Limits that are unlawful and invalid; (3) the permit fails to include unpermitted Approval Order Modifications in 2010, including Best Achievable Control Technology (BACT) requirements; (4) the permit fails to include 2010 PSD requirements, including BACT, for oxides of nitrogen; and (5) UDAQ failed to respond to the Petitioner's comments.
On October 16, 2017, the Administrator issued an Order denying the petition. The Order explains the EPA's basis for denying the petition.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10395, The First National Bank of Florida, Milton, Florida, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of The First National Bank of Florida (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10506, NBRS Financial, Rising Sun, Maryland, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of NBRS Financial (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10381, LandMark Bank of Florida, Sarasota, Florida, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of LandMark Bank of Florida (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10509, Northern Star Bank, Mankato, Minnesota, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of Northern Star Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10397, Citizens Bank of Northern California, Nevada City, California, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of Citizens Bank of Northern California (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10391, First Southern National Bank, Statesboro, Georgia, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of First Southern National Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 1007, Mirae Bank, Los Angeles, California, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of Mirae Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10160, SolutionsBank, Overland Park, Kansas, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of SolutionsBank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10517, Hometown National Bank, Longview, Washington, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of Hometown National Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10383, BankMeridian, N.A., Columbia, South Carolina, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of BankMeridian, N.A. (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10389, Public Savings Bank, Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of Public Savings Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10503, The Freedom State Bank, Freedom, Oklahoma, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of The Freedom State Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10151, Commerce Bank of Southwest Florida, Fort Myers, Florida, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of Commerce Bank of Southwest Florida (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10133, Riverview Community Bank, Otsego, Minnesota, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of Riverview Community Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10453, Second Federal Savings and Loan Association of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of Second Federal Savings and Loan Association of Chicago (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10496, Vantage Point Bank, Horsham, Pennsylvania, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of Vantage Point Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10415, Premier Community Bank of the Emerald Coast, Crestview, Florida, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of Premier Community Bank of the Emerald Coast (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10417, American Eagle Savings Bank, Boothwyn, Pennsylvania, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of American Eagle Savings Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective December 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
82 FR 57265, December 4, 2017.
Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. (Ninth Floor)
This meeting will be open to the public.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202)694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 4, 2018.
1.
2.
In connection with this proposal, Applicant has applied to acquire Martinsburg Acquisition Corp., Perryville, Missouri, which has applied to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Martinsburg Bancorp, Inc., Martinsburg, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire Martinsburg Bank & Trust Company, Mexico, Missouri.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 27, 2017.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 5, 2018.
1.
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the
The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.
Theresa Kingsberry, Program Support Specialist, Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room CC-5301, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 326-3100.
By direction of the Commission.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning pre-solicitation notice and response. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before January 10, 2018.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr. Procurement Analyst, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA 202-501-1448 or
Presolicitation notices are used by the Government for several reasons, one of which is to aid prospective contractors in submitting proposals without undue expenditure of effort, time, and money. The Government also uses the presolicitation notices to control printing and mailing costs. The presolicitation notice response is used to determine the number of solicitation documents needed, and to assure that interested offerors receive the solicitation documents. The responses are placed in the contract file, and referred to, when solicitation documents are ready for mailing.
After mailing, the responses remain in the contract file and become a matter of record. The FAR sections affected are: 4.5; 14.205; 15.201(c) and 36.213-2. The responses are placed in the contract file and referred to when solicitation documents are ready for mailing. After mailing, the responses remain in the contract file and become a matter of record. FedBizOpps is an electronic method for publicizing contract opportunities. The number of presolicitation notices issued government-wide in the last 365 days (as of August 11, 2017) per FedBizOpps was 7,952.
We estimate that three respondents on average would reply to a presolicitation notice. Based on this information, we feel that the estimated respondents would number 23,856. We also estimate that each respondent on average would reply to three presolicitation notices a year. Time required to read and prepare information is estimated at five minutes per completion.
The burden has increased from the one in
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0037, Presolicitation Notice and Response, in all correspondence.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the availability of stored sera, plasma, and urine samples obtained from participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for use and the fee schedule for such use. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is one of a series of health-related surveys conducted by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
The stored NHANES biologic samples are available December 11, 2017. The fee structure for these samples is effective December 11, 2017.
Dr. Geraldine McQuillan, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782. Telephone: 301-458-4371; Fax: 301-458-4029; Email:
Sections 301,306 and 308 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241,242k and 242M).
NHANES is a program of periodic surveys conducted by NCHS. Examination surveys conducted since 1960 by NCHS have provided national estimates of the health and nutritional status of the U.S. civilian non-institutionalized population. The goals of NHANES are: (1) To estimate the number and percent of persons in the U.S. population and designated subgroups with selected diseases and risk factors; (2) to monitor trends in the prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of selected diseases; (3) to monitor trends in risk behaviors and environmental exposures; (4) to analyze risk factors for selected diseases; (5) to study the relationship between diet, nutrition and health; (6) to explore emerging public health issues and new technologies; and (7) to establish and maintain a national probability sample of baseline information on health and nutrition status.
Samples are available from NHANES III and the continuous NHANES that started in 1999. Approximately 30,000 individuals were examined in NHANES III, which began in the fall of 1988, and ended in the fall of 1994. Researchers can analyze data from this survey in two phases. Phase 1 was conducted from October 1988 to October 1991 and Phase 2 began October 1991 and ended October 1994. Though participants consented to storing samples of their blood and urine for future testing, only research proposals with test results that are judged
Beginning in 1999, NHANES became a continuous, annual survey with examination of approximately 5,000 individuals a year and data release every two years. Samples from a single year of the survey will only be provided in emergency situations (outbreaks). Research projects must use two-year cycles or multiple two year cycles for their research (
Starting in 1999, the consent form informed participants that they would not receive results from any future laboratory analysis that may be conducted on their samples. Therefore, only research proposals with laboratory test results that do
Serum, plasma, and urine samples are currently available from NHANES III (conducted from 1988-1994) and from NHANES 1999-2016 (Table A).
Serum, plasma, and urine samples are stored in two biorepositories. Surplus samples that were initially used for laboratory assays included in the surveys, were stored at −70 °C and have been through at least two freeze-thaw cycles. They are stored at a commercial biorepository under contract to NCHS. In addition, serum, plasma, and urine samples were also stored immediately after collection at −80 °C or below in vapor-phase liquid nitrogen. These samples have not undergone a freeze-thaw cycle and are considered pristine samples. The CDC and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Sample Packaging and Handling Repository (CASPIR) is the long-term repository for the pristine NHANES serum, plasma, and urine samples. NCHS is making both of these collections available for research proposals. Proposals that request pristine samples stored at CASPIR should justify the use of the unthawed samples. Please see the NHANES Biospecimen Program series report for details about collection and storage of serum, plasma, and urine samples
All proposals for use of NHANES samples will be evaluated by a Technical Panel for scientific merit, public health significance, and lack of clinical significance to the participant; by the NCHS Confidentiality Officer for disclosure risk; and by the NCHS Human Subjects Officer and the ERB for any potential human subjects concerns. The NCHS Ethics Review Board (ERB) will review the proposal even if the investigator has received approval by their institutional review panel.
The Technical Panel consists of NHANES staff: Two physicians, one statistician and two laboratory experts, other experts from inside or outside the Federal Government are added as needed. The Technical Panel will evaluate the proposal for the scientific, technical and medical significance of the research, the appropriateness and adequacy of the research design, and the methodology proposed to reach the research goals. See `Criteria for Technical Evaluation of Proposals' below. The proposal should outline how the results from the laboratory analysis will be used. Because NHANES is a complex, multistage probability sample of the U.S. population, the appropriateness of the NHANES sample to address the goals of the proposal will be an important aspect of scientific merit.
The survey oversamples the two largest race/ethnic minority groups, non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican Americans (and all Hispanics since 2007-08), and, since 2011-2012, Asians. Sampling weights are therefore used to make national estimates of frequencies. The use of weights, sampling frame and methods of assessment of variables included in the data are likely to affect the proposed research. For this reason proposers are required to request at least a
The Technical Panel will also review the data analysis plan and evaluate whether the proposal is an appropriate use of the NHANES samples. The investigators should justify why they need a national probability sample for their research. The Technical Panel will assure that the proposed project does not go beyond either the general purpose for collecting the samples in the survey, or of the specific stated goals of the proposal.
Investigators are encouraged to review the NHANES data, survey documents, manuals and questionnaires at:
All investigators (including CDC investigators) must submit a proposal for use of NHANES serum, plasma, or urine samples. Proposals are limited to a maximum of 10 single-spaced typed pages, excluding figures and tables, using at least a size 10 font 10cpi. The cover of the proposal should include the name, address, and phone number and Email address of the principal investigator (PI) and the name of the institution where the laboratory analysis will be done. All proposals should be Emailed to
The following criteria will be used for technical evaluation of proposals:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The program will evaluate the Investigator's submitted proposal study design and analysis plan to determine whether the project is consistent with the design of the NHANES survey. In general, resulting data will be released in the public domain. Released data from sub-samples may be less useful to the research community, so such requests will receive a lower priority for the samples.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Proposals can be submitted in MS Word format by Email to: Dr. Geraldine McQuillan (see
Approved projects will be provided samples after receipt of a signed Materials Transfer Agreement (MTA) and a check (written to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) for the cost of the samples or for Federal Government proposals a signed Interagency Agreement (IAA). All laboratory results obtained from the samples must be sent back to NCHS to be linked to the variables requested by the investigator that are needed to perform a quality control review of the data under a signed Data Sharing Agreement or a Designated Agent Agreement. This review must take place within 60 days of the return of the data to NCHS so these data may be released to the public. All files will also undergo disclosure review at NCHS before release.
A formal signed agreement in the form of a MTA or an IAA with investigators who have projects approved will be completed before the release of the samples. This agreement will contain the conditions for use of the samples as stated in this document and as agreed upon by the investigators and CDC.
A brief progress report will be submitted annually. This will be the basis for the NCHS ERB continuation reports that are required annually. After 5 years of annual continuations, if there is need for continued use of samples to complete the protocol study, a new protocol is required.
No samples provided can be used for any purpose other than those specifically requested in the proposal and approved by the Technical Panel and the NCHS ERB. No samples can be shared with others, including other investigators, unless specified in the proposal and so approved. Any unused samples must be returned to the NHANES Serum, Plasma and Urine Repository or disposed of, after NHANES approval, upon completion of the approved project. These results, once returned to NCHS, will be part of the public domain. The proposer will have 60 days for quality control review of the data before public release.
There is a nominal processing fee of $13.00 for each sample received from the NHANES Serum, Plasma and Urine Repository. If the investigator requests to use the samples for another project after the completion of the initial project, the cost will be $5.00 per sample to handle the processing of the data and management of the proposal process. The costs include the collection, storage, and processing of the samples along with the review of proposals and the preparation of the data files. The costs listed are for the recurring laboratory materials to dispense and prepare the samples during collection and for shipping; the computer software needed for the preparation of the data files and for the release of the data along with documentation on the NHANES Web page. See:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by January 10, 2018.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by January 10, 2018.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Forms CMS-21 and -21B provide CMS with the information necessary to issue quarterly grant awards, monitor current year expenditure levels, determine the allowability of state claims for reimbursement, develop Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) financial management information, provide for state reporting of waiver expenditures, and ensure that the federally established allotment is not exceeded. They are also necessary in the redistribution and reallocation of unspent funds over the federally mandated timeframes.
Form CMS-37 due dates are November 15, February 15, May 15 and August 15 of each fiscal year. While all submissions represent equally important components of the grant award cycle, the May and November submissions are particularly significant for budget formulation. The November submission introduces a new fiscal year to the budget cycle and serves as the basis for the formulation of the Medicaid portion of the President's Budget, which is presented to Congress in January. The February and August submissions are used primarily for budget execution in providing interim updates to our Office of Financial Management, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress depending on the scheduling of the national budget review process in a given fiscal year. The submissions provide us with base information necessary to track current year obligations and expenditures in relation to the current year appropriation and to notify senior managers of any impending surpluses or deficits.
Form CMS-64 is used to issue quarterly grant awards, monitor current year expenditure levels, determine allowed state claims for reimbursement, develop Medicaid financial management information provide for state reporting of waiver expenditures, ensure that the federally-established limit is not exceeded for HCBS waivers, and to allow for the implementation of the Assignment of Rights and Part A and Part B Premium (
The case review system assures that each child has a case plan designed to achieve placement in a safe setting that is the least restrictive (most family-like) setting available and in close proximity to the child's parental home, consistent with the best interest and special needs of the child. Through these requirements, States and Tribes also comply, in part, with title IV-B section 422(b) of the Act, which assures certain protections for children in foster care.
The case plan is a written document that provides a narrative description of the child-specific program of care. Federal regulations at 45 CFR 1356.21(g) and section 475(1) of the Act delineate the specific information that should be addressed in the case plan. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) does not specify a recordkeeping format for the case plan nor does ACF require submission of the document to the Federal government. Case plan information is recorded in a format developed and maintained by the State or Tribal child welfare agency.
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 January 10, 2018.
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
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Sections 1104, 1302, 3301, 3304, 3320, 3361, 3393, and 3394 of Title 5 of the United States Code authorize Federal agencies to rate applicants for Federal jobs. The proposed information collection involves brief online applications completed by applicants applying to FDA's fellowship programs. These voluntary online applications will allow the Agency to easily and efficiently elicit and review information from students and healthcare professionals who are interested in becoming involved in FDA-wide activities. The process will reduce the time and cost of submitting written documentation to the Agency and lessen the likelihood of applications being misrouted within the Agency mail system. It will assist the Agency in promoting and protecting the public health by encouraging outside persons to share their expertise with FDA.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before February 9, 2018.
Submit your comments to
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-New-60D and project title for reference., to
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (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: 0990-0263-Extension Protection of Human Subjects Assurance Identification/IRB Certification/Declaration of Exemption (Common Rule) form.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health, December 14, 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and December 15, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., that was published in the
The meeting will be closed to the public on December 14, 2017, from 4:45 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. for the discussion and identification of specific candidates for leadership positions at the NIH in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(9)(B) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. Premature disclosure of potential candidates and their qualifications, as well as the discussions by the committee, could significantly frustrate NIH's ability to recruit these individuals and the consideration of personnel qualifications, performance, and the competence of individuals as candidates would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
There are no changes for the open portion of the meeting scheduled for December 15, 2017.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Aging.
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.,
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. 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 meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Dione Washington, Health Science Policy Analyst, Strategic Planning and Evaluation Branch, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 5F32, Rockville, Maryland 20892, call 240-699-2100, or Email your request, including your address to:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health, 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.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 34575.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with a short public comment period at the end. Attendance is limited by the 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 open session will also be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting Web site (
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
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 a meeting of the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the contact person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number, and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxis, 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.
In order to facilitate public attendance at the open session of Council in the main meeting room, Conference Room 6, please contact Ms. Lisa Kaeser, Program and Public Liaison Office, NICHD, at 301-496-0536 to make your reservation, additional seating will be available in the meeting overflow rooms, Conference Rooms 7 and 8. Individuals will also be able to view the meeting via NIH Videocast. Select the following link for Videocast access instructions:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits certain activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by January 10, 2018.
•
•
Colleen Henson, Recovery Permits Coordinator, Ecological Services, (503) 231-6131 (phone);
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), invite the public to comment on applications for permits to conduct activities intended to promote recovery of endangered species. With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
The ESA prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless authorized by a Federal permit. The ESA and our implementing regulations in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide for the issuance of such permits and require that we invite public comment before issuing permits for activities involving endangered species.
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, Tribes, Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications.
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. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Please make your comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.
If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services Division will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 9, 2018.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Kimberly A. Webber, Global Operations Section, CJIS Division Intelligence Group, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, (CJIS), biometric Technology Center, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306; facsimile 304-625-2198.
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.
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Department of Justice.
Notice.
The Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until February 9, 2018.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lashon M. Hilliard, Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530; Telephone number: 202-514-6563 (Note: this is not a toll-free number).
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of This Information Collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jake Bishop-Green, Acting Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Office of Job Corps, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL or Department), ETA, Office of Job Corps, is issuing a draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) regarding the proposed rehabilitation or replacement of buildings at the Gulfport Job Corps Center (JCC) in Gulfport, Mississippi.
To be ensured for consideration, comments must be submitted in writing on or before January 10, 2018.
Comments can be submitted by email to Marsha Fitzhugh at
Marsha Fitzhugh, Division of Facilities and Asset Management, Office of Job Corps, ETA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-4463, Washington, DC 20210; Telephone (202) 693-3000 (this is not a toll-free number).
Established in 1964, Job Corps is a national program administered by ETA in the Department. It is the nation's largest federally-funded, primarily residential training program for youth ages 16-24. With 125 centers across the country, Job Corps seeks to change lives through education and job training for in-demand careers. Job Corps serves at-risk young people who seek to overcome barriers to employment, which can include poverty, homelessness, or aging out of the foster care system, by providing them with the academic, career technical, and employability skills to enter the workforce, enroll in post-secondary education, pursue apprenticeship opportunities, or enlist in the military.
The Gulfport JCC opened in 1978 utilizing buildings that were initially constructed in 1954 as a high school for African-American students, known as the 33rd Avenue High School. The three original high school buildings, which are considered eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), sustained extensive damage during Hurricane Katrina. As a result, the Gulfport JCC reopened with temporary facilities three and a half years after the storm. These three original buildings have not been rehabilitated.
Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] part 1500-08) implementing procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the DOL, ETA, and Office of Job Corps, in accordance with 29 CFR 11.11(d), give notice that an Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the proposed rehabilitation or replacement of buildings at the Gulfport Job Corps Center (JCC), Gulfport, Mississippi. The EA evaluated the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the redevelopment of buildings at the Gulfport JCC. Three action alternatives and the No Action Alternative were evaluated in the EA. After careful consideration, it was determined that the Preferred Alternative, to retain the existing street-facing building façades and construct new buildings behind the façades, would best meet the purpose and need without causing significant environmental impacts. This Preferred Alternative would add approximately 93,000 gross square feet (GSF) of permanent, functional space at the Gulfport JCC.
The Preferred Alternative would retain the appearance of the historic structures by retaining the street-facing façades of Building 1, originally the main high school building, and Building 2, the gymnasium. New buildings would be constructed behind the façades to provide administration, educational, medical/dental, and recreation spaces that meet the needs of the Gulfport JCC and Job Corps program guidelines. Building 5, the cafeteria, would be demolished and replaced by a new, modern cafeteria, and a new building would be constructed for vocational training for shop-related trades and for storage and maintenance. The Preferred Alternative would result in a modern Job Corps instructional campus that meets the purpose of and need for the proposed action.
Under the Preferred Alternative, there would be adverse impacts on historic properties; however, adverse impacts would be resolved through mitigation. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between DOL, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the City of Gulfport memorializing the steps necessary to mitigate the adverse effects cause by the Preferred Alternative for the Gulfport JCC redevelopment project was executed on September 19, 2017. Mitigation measures include retaining the street-facing façades of Buildings 1 and 2, with new buildings being constructed behind the façades; preparation of Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II, which would record the appearance and history of the buildings to be filed with the National Park Service for inclusion in the Library of Congress' HABS collection; an exhibit near the entrance to the new Main Building to preserve the memory of the 33rd Avenue High School and honor its alumni; and renaming the Gulfport JCC to memorialize the 33rd Avenue High School. Because adverse impacts on cultural resources would be resolved through mitigation, the Preferred Alternative would not result in significant impacts on cultural resources.
To comply with the CEQ requirement for “early and meaningful public participation,” the public was invited to meetings and encouraged to provide input throughout the process of developing the EA. A public scoping meeting was held on June 14, 2016, in Gulfport, to discuss the proposed project. Public comments received at the meeting were considered in the preparation of the EA. The Draft EA was provided to the public for a 30-day review and comment period. The availability of the EA for review was announced through a news release published in the
The Draft Final EA and Draft FONSI will be available for public review and comment for a period of 30 days at the Gulfport Public Library, 1708 25th Avenue, Gulfport, MS 39501, and at
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation Office, Department of Labor.
Notice of Information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance 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 of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This 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 is properly assessed.
Currently, the Department of Labor is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data to support an analysis of alternative strategies for UI deficit financing. A copy of the proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before February 9, 2018.
You may submit comments by either one of the following methods:
Scott Gibbons by email at
I.
DOL is sponsoring an analysis of costs related to UI deficit financing, and the planned data collection includes a qualitative interviews with Federal and state officials who play roles in the deficit financing process, as well as interviews with finance professionals and bond underwriters to understand their perspectives. This information will be used, along with materials from a literature search and environmental scan, to better understand the factors that influence state decisions between possible financing methods.
This
II.
• 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.
• 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- for example, permitting electronic submission of responses.
III.
Comments submitted in response to this request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, December 14, 2017.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Open.
1. NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Emergency Mergers.
2. NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Agency Reorganization.
10:30 a.m.
10:45 a.m., Thursday, December 14, 2017.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
1. Supervisory Action. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (7), (8), and (9)(ii).
2. Request under Section 205(d) of the Federal Credit Union Act. Closed pursuant to Exemption (6).
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
Weeks of December 11, 18, 25, 2017, January 1, 8, 15, 2018.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 18, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 25, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 1, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 8, 2018.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
By a vote of 3-0 on December 6, 2017, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that the above referenced Affirmation Session be held with less than one week notice to the public. The meeting is scheduled on December 11, 2017.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received an application from the U.S. Army Installation Management Command (Army) for amendment of Source Materials License No. SUC-1593 which authorizes possession only of depleted uranium (DU) from the Davy Crockett M101 spotting rounds. The amendment would allow the Army to correct sizing/scaling errors in Figure 1-2 of the Fort Polk, Fort Riley, and Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) Site-Specific Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plan (ERMP) annexes to the Programmatic ERMP.
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by February 9, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0036 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:
•
•
•
Amy Snyder, Senior Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6822, email:
In an application dated June 1, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17158B356), the Army requested an amendment to correct sizing/scaling errors in Figure 1-2 of the Fort Polk, Fort Riley, and PTA Site-Specific ERMP annexes to the Programmatic ERMP, incorporated by reference in Source Materials License No. SUC-1593 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A164). In addition, the Army requested an amendment to the license that would allow the Army to make future changes to correct similar “minor errors” in annexes to the Programmatic ERMP without submittal of a license amendment request.
The staff completed its administrative acceptance review of the application and determined that the request to correct specific figure sizing/scaling errors in the identified Site-Specific ERMP annexes contains sufficient information for the staff to begin a detailed technical review. However, the staff determined that the Army's proposal to make similar future “minor changes” to annexes to the Programmatic ERMP without NRC approval did not contain enough information to accept the request for detailed technical review. In the staff's acceptance review letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML17226A205), the staff informed the Army that the staff will begin its detailed technical review of the changes to correct figure sizing/scaling errors in the Site-Specific ERMP annexes for Fort Polk, Fort Riley, and PTA.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in part 2 of title 10 of the
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
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, “Public Records.” The NRC updated two forms integral to the agency's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process, NRC Form 509, “Statement of Estimated Fees for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request” and NRC Form 507, “Freedom of Information—Privacy Act Record Request Form.”
Submit comments by January 10, 2018.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Brandon F. DeBruhl, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0043), 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-2017-0116 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, 10 CFR part 9, “Public Records.” 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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from elements of the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic AP1000 design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment Nos. 96 and 95 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-91 and NPF-92, respectively. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
The exemption and amendment were issued on November 6, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 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:
•
•
•
William Gleaves, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5848; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from paragraph B of section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in §§ 50.12, 52.7, and section VIII.A.4 of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17272A280.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML17272A278 and ML17272A279, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML17272A275 and ML17272A276, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VEGP Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated December 22, 2015, as revised by letters dated July 27, 2016, May 19, 2017, and the response to the staff's request for additional information dated August 31, 2017, Southern Nuclear Operating Company requested from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” as part of LAR 15-019, “Addition of New Turbine Building Sump Pumps.”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's safety evaluation, which can be found at ADAMS Accession No. ML17272A280, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to Appendix C of the Facility Combined Licenses as described in the request dated December 22, 2015, as revised by letters dated July 27, 2016, May 19, 2017, and the response to the staff's request for additional information dated August 31, 2017. This exemption is related to, and necessary for, the granting of License Amendment Nos. 96 and 95, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 6.0 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML17272A280, this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated December 22, 2015, as revised by letters dated July 27, 2016, May 19, 2017, and the response to the staff's request for additional information dated August 31, 2017 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15356A655, ML16209A477, ML17139D394, and ML17243A459, respectively), the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or COL, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on December 22, 2015, as revised by letters dated July 27, 2016, May 19, 2017, and the response to the staff's request for additional information dated August 31, 2017.
The exemption and amendment were issued on November 6, 2017, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML17272A272).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 10, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0174) was previously published in the
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,
Form RI 20-63 is used by annuitants to elect a reduced annuity with a survivor annuity for their spouse. Form RI 20-116 is a cover letter for RI 20-63 giving information about the cost to elect less than the maximum survivor annuity. This letter is used to supply the information requested by the annuitant about the cost of electing less than the maximum annuity. Form RI 20-117 is a cover letter for RI 20-63 giving information about the cost to elect the maximum survivor annuity.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR), Marital Status Certification Survey, RI 25-7.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 9, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Retirement Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Alberta Butler, Room 2347-E, or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection (OMB No. 3206-0033). The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 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,
Form RI 25-7 is used to determine whether widows, widowers, and former spouses receiving survivor annuities from OPM have remarried before reaching age 55 and, thus, are no longer eligible for benefits.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Staff Acquisition Group, offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an emergency processing request for reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved information collection request (ICR) 3206-0246, Scholarship for Service Program Registration Web site, for which approval has expired. The Cyber Corps®: Scholarship for Service (SFS) program is designed to help Federal agencies find the talent they need to protect the government's critical information infrastructure. This program provides scholarships to students in cybersecurity fields in exchange for government service upon graduation. OPM is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) take action on the information collection reinstatement within five (5) calendar days of the request.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 9, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Personnel Management, Mid-Atlantic Services Branch, 200 Granby Street, Suite 500, Norfolk, VA 23510-1886, Attention: Stephanie Travis or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Mid-Atlantic Services Branch, 200 Granby Street, Suite 500, Norfolk, VA 23510-1886, Attention: Stephanie Travis or sent via electronic mail to
This notice announces OPM has submitted to OMB a request for emergency review of a previously approved information collection request (ICR) 3206-0246, Scholarship for Service Program Registration Web site. OPM requests OMB take action on this reinstatement within five (5) calendar days of receiving the request. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection (ICR 3206-0246). OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Scholarship for Service Program was established by the National Science Foundation (NSF), in collaboration with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in accordance with the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-274). NSF partners with OPM's Human Resources Solutions (HRS), under a reimbursable agreement, to support this initiative by administering the program. This initiative reflects the critical need for Information Technology (IT) professionals, industrial control system security professionals, and security managers in Federal, State, local and tribal governments. Students identified by their institutions for SFS Scholarships must meet selection criteria based on prior academic performance, likelihood of success in obtaining the degree, and suitability for government employment. Upon graduation, scholarship recipients are required to work a period equal to the length of their scholarship in Federal, State, Local or Tribal Government or in other approved organization as cybersecurity professionals. Approval of the Web page is necessary to facilitate the timely registration, selection and placement of program-enrolled students in Government agencies. OPM has taken all practicable steps to consult with Federal agency stakeholders and the public to minimize the burden of this information collection request. OPM conducted a Privacy Impact Assessment on May 3, 2017.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection, Application to Make Deposit or Redeposit (CSRS)—SF 2803 and Application to Make Service Credit Payment for Civilian Service (FERS)—SF 3108.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 10, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0134) was previously published in the
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,
SF 2803, Application to Make Deposit or Redeposit (CSRS) and SF 3108, Application to Make Service Credit Payment for Civilian Service (FERS), are applications to make payment used by persons who are eligible to pay for Federal service which was not subject to retirement deductions which were subsequently refunded to the applicant.
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 request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
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 December 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 5, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 5, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 5, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed on October 10, 2017 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) advance notice SR-OCC-2017-805 (“Advance Notice”) pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act”)
In connection with OCC's performance of clearance and settlement services, OCC and its Clearing Members are obligated to perform cash settlement functions pursuant to OCC's By-Laws and Rules. For example, a Clearing Member may be obligated to pay OCC the premium for a cleared contract, or OCC may be obligated to pay a Clearing Member the settlement value of a cleared contract.
OCC generates settlement instructions associated with Cleared Contracts and Stock Loans of Clearing Members by running specific predefined settlement profiles
Each Clearing Bank has entered into a Cash Settlement Procedures Agreement (“CSPA”) with OCC that details the substantive rights and responsibilities of the parties and specifies operational procedures for which they are responsible regarding start-of-day and intra-day settlement instructions. This process includes prescribed communication methods and settlement procedures, including a requirement that the Clearing Bank act upon the settlement instructions before a defined settlement time. If a Clearing Bank does not expressly accept or reject a settlement instruction by the specified settlement time, the Clearing Bank is deemed to have accepted the instruction.
The processes agreed to in the CSPAs currently are conducted via OCS because the SWIFT messaging network is available for cash settlement processes in narrow circumstances only. For example, OCC states that SWIFT is available to Clearing Members to deposit letters of credit for margining purposes provided: (i) They are denominated in U.S. dollars, (ii) they are issued by banks or trust companies, (iii) they are approved by OCC as margin assets, and (iv) the issuer of any such letter of credit submits amendments to OCC using the SWIFT network. OCC states that it manages this process through a SWIFT system that interfaces with OCC's OCS so that OCC is able to track and process the amendment messages.
The proposals set forth in OCC's Advance Notice would change its current cash settlement process with Clearing Members by: (i) Requiring Clearing Banks to expand the use of the SWIFT messaging network, and (ii) creating a new standardized CSPA template. Collectively, OCC believes these changes would improve OCC's resiliency, efficiency, and consistency, thereby mitigating risks.
OCC's Advance Notice states that the changes to its cash settlement process are intended to improve OCC's current cash settlement process by implementing the SWIFT messaging network as the primary means of transmitting daily cash settlement between OCC and the Clearing Banks. Currently, OCS requires Clearing Banks to process aspects of the cash settlement process manually, including logging into OCS to reject settlement instructions or to accept in instances where Clearing Banks opt to actively accept settlement instructions prior to the specified settlement time. These requirements result in inconsistent operational practices across Clearing Banks since OCS is a proprietary online cash settlement system and not all Clearing Banks use OCS consistently.
Due to the automated nature of the SWIFT messaging network, OCC believes that implementing SWIFT would reduce manual processing and approval steps. For instance, settlement instructions would be automatically transmitted to Clearing Banks over the SWIFT network so that Clearing Bank staff would not need to log into OCS to accept or reject them. Similarly, OCC automatically would receive any acceptances provided.
Accordingly, OCC believes that the proposed changes would increase the efficiency, accuracy, and resiliency of OCC's cash settlement process while eliminating certain risks inherent in both having Clearing Banks using different systems that employ manual processes. In addition, OCC states that the changes would adopt communication procedures and standards that are internationally accepted and therefore are consistent with the requirements in Rule 17Ad-22(e)(22) under the Exchange Act.
The CSPA is the principal form of agreement that: (i) Governs the rights and responsibilities of OCC and each Clearing Bank, (ii) details operational procedures (including backup procedures) and security protocols, and (iii) identifies individuals at OCC and at the Clearing Bank who are authorized to act on behalf of each party with respect to cash settlement instructions. According to OCC, the CSPAs currently in effect between OCC and its Clearing Banks were implemented over many years as OCC's operations expanded and it became appropriate to maintain service agreements with a range of Clearing Banks. In addition, many of OCC's CSPAs have not been renegotiated in a long time. Accordingly, OCC states that there are substantial deviations among some of the terms and conditions of the respective CSPAs and the corresponding Clearing Bank practices.
As a part of the transition to SWIFT, Clearing Banks would enter into new CSPAs with OCC. Each CSPA would be based on a standardized template developed by OCC in collaboration with its Clearing Banks. Each CSPA would establish various deadlines for OCC and the Clearing Bank as well as backup procedures.
Although the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Act”) does not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, the stated purpose of the Act is instructive.
Section 805(a)(2) of the Act
• To promote robust risk management;
• To promote safety and soundness;
• To reduce systemic risks; and
• To support the stability of the broader financial system.
Section 805(c) provides, in addition, that the Commission's risk-management standards may address such areas as risk-management and default policies and procedures, among others areas.
The Commission has adopted risk-management standards under Section 805(a)(2) of the Act and the Exchange Act (the “Clearing Agency Rules”).
The Commission believes each proposal in OCC's Advance Notice is consistent with promoting robust risk management, promoting safety and soundness, reducing systemic risks, and supporting the stability of the broader financial system, the stated objectives and principles of Section 805(b) of the Act.
First, the Commission believes that OCC's proposal to implement the SWIFT messaging network as the primary means of transmitting cash settlement instructions between OCC and each Clearing Bank is consistent with promoting safety and soundness. The Commission agrees with OCC's analysis that usage of the SWIFT messaging network would mitigate risks that arise in the existing cash settlement process due to manual processing steps and inconsistent practices across OCC's Clearing Banks. By having an automated and standardized process that sends automatic messages without requiring Clearing Bank staff members to log into OCS to manually accept or reject settlement instructions, the Commission further believes the proposal would enhance the resiliency, efficiency, and consistency of OCC's cash settlement process. The Commission therefore believes this specific proposal is consistent with promoting safety and soundness.
Second, the Commission believes that OCC's proposal to update, enhance and standardize a uniform set of CSPAs between OCC and each Clearing Bank would promote robust risk management. Specifically, the Commission believes that this proposal will reduce the risk of settlement delay or error that may arise due to each Clearing Bank operating according to disparate CSPA terms and requirements. The Commission therefore believes this specific proposal is consistent with promoting robust risk management.
Consistent with the conclusions discussed above, the Commission also believes that OCC's proposal is consistent with supporting the broader stability of the financial system. Specifically, the Commission believes that promoting the prompt and accurate messaging between OCC and the Clearing Banks would promote safety and soundness of both OCC and Clearing Banks. The reduction in errors and delays arising from the proposed implementation of SWIFT and more harmonized CSPAs would also enhance the reliability and resilience of OCC's cash settlement process for Clearing Members, thereby decreasing systemic risks. Accordingly, the proposed changes would support the stability of the broader financial system. Thus, the Commission believes that the proposals contained in the Advance Notice are consistent with the stated objectives and principles of Section 805(b) of the Act.
The Commission further believes that OCC's proposals in the Advance Notice are consistent with the Covered Clearing Agency Standards, specifically Rule 17Ad-22(e)(22) under the Exchange Act.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to add additional detail about the purposes for which Nasdaq PSX (“PSX”) uses securities information processor data pursuant to Rule 3304, and to make other technical corrections to that rule.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to add additional detail about the purposes for which the Exchange uses securities information processor (“SIP”) data pursuant to Rule 3304, and to make other technical corrections to that rule. Rule 3304 lists the proprietary and network processor feeds that are utilized for the handling, routing, and execution of orders, as well as for the regulatory compliance processes related to those functions. The PSX trading system utilizes proprietary market data as the Primary Source of quotation data for the following markets that provide a reliable direct feed: Nasdaq, NYSE American, Nasdaq BX, CBOE EDGA, CBOE EDGX, CHX, NYSE, NYSE Arca, Nasdaq, Nasdaq PSX, CBOE BYX, and CBOE BZX.
Generally, Rule 3304 provides that the Primary Source of data is used for the handling, routing, and execution of orders, as well as for the regulatory compliance processes related to those functions, unless it is delayed by a configurable amount compared to the Secondary Source of data. While this is true for quotation data used by the trading system for the handling, routing, and execution of orders, and also regulatory compliance processes related to those functions, including, for example, determination of trade-throughs under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the Exchange uses SIP data for certain trade and administrative messages. For example, the Exchange uses SIP data for limit-up limit-down price bands, market-wide circuit breaker decline and status messages, Regulation SHO state messages, trading state messages (
The Exchange therefore proposes to amend Rule 3304 to provide that the PSX System consumes
Finally, the Exchange proposes to make additional technical amendments to Rule 3304. Specifically, several of the exchanges and direct market data feeds described in the rule have been renamed since the Exchange adopted the rule. The Exchange therefore propose to: (1) Rename the exchanges described in the rule so that the exchanges are identified by their new names,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors and the public interest because it provides additional transparency around the purposes for which the Exchange uses SIP data. The proposed rule change does not change the operation of the Exchange or its use of data feeds; rather it clarifies the Exchange's rules with regard to information consumed from the SIP. Specifically, the proposed rule change indicates that the Exchange uses SIP data for certain administrative messages, including, limit-up limit-down price bands, market-wide circuit breaker decline and status messages, Regulation SHO state messages, and trading state messages (
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to use SIP data as the primary source for administrative messages that originate from the SIP and may or may not be available on particular proprietary market data feeds. Although quote data used for the handling, routing, and execution of orders is typically available with a lower latency over the direct feeds, the same is not true for the administrative messages described above that originate from the SIP and are re-disseminated (or not disseminated at all) by the various direct feeds. The Exchange therefore believes that it is consistent with the public interest and protection of investors to get this information directly from the SIP,
The proposed rule change also makes certain technical amendments to Rule 3304, including updating the names of exchanges that have been renamed since the adoption of this rule. The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors to update the names of the exchanges listed in Rule 3304 as this change will make it easier for market participants to identify the exchanges for which the Exchange uses the direct feed and/or SIP for the purposes described in the rule. Furthermore, the proposed rule change replaces the names of the direct feeds with a generic notation that the “Direct Feed” is used. The Exchange believes that this change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as the exchanges may change the names of their data feeds periodically, resulting in the list being out of date. Rather than update the list every time a market changes the names of their proprietary market data products, the Exchange believes that it is preferable to simply explain that the direct feed is used. Several other exchanges also similarly note that the direct feed is used rather than spelling out the names of each feed.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather would provide members and other market participants with information about the purposes for which the Exchange uses SIP data, and make other technical corrections to Rule 3304. No changes to the Exchange's trading or other systems are being introduced with the proposed rule change, and the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will increase transparency around the operation of the Exchange and its use of market data feeds without any significant impact on competition.
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
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to list and trade shares of a series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy ETF under the ETF Series Solutions Trust (the “Trust”), under Rule 14.11(c)(3) (“Index Fund Shares”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of each series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy ETF (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”) under Rule 14.11(c)(3), which governs the listing and trading of Index Fund Shares based on equity securities indexes on the Exchange. In total, the Exchange is proposing to list and trade Shares of twelve monthly series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy ETF. Each Fund will be an index-based exchange traded fund (“ETF”). The Funds will include the following: Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (January) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (February) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (March) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (April) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (May) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (June) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (July) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (August) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (September) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (October) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (November) ETF; and Cboe Vest S&P 500® Enhanced Growth Strategy (December) ETF. Each Fund will be based on the Cboe S&P 500 Enhanced Growth Index (Month) Series, where “Month” is the corresponding month associated with the roll date of the applicable Fund (each an “Index” and, collectively, the “Indexes”).
The Shares will be offered by the Trust, which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on February 9, 2012. The Trust is registered with the Commission as an open-end investment company and has filed a registration statement on behalf of the Funds on Form N-1A (“Registration Statement”) with the Commission.
The Exchange also notes that the Adviser is a BZX Affiliate as defined in Rule 14.3(e)(1)(A),
Each Fund's investment objective is to track, before fees and expenses, the performance of its respective Index. The value of each Index is calculated daily by Cboe Options utilizing an option valuation model. The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the Indexes for the Funds do not meet the listing requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3) applicable to an index that consists of equity securities (and with respect to this underlying index, an index that consists of options on an index of U.S. Component Stocks),
Each Index is a rules-based options index that consists exclusively of FLexible EXchange Options on the S&P 500 Index (“FLEX Options”) listed on Cboe Options.
Each Index is designed to provide the following outcomes between Roll Dates:
•
•
•
Each Index includes a mix of purchased and written (sold) put and call FLEX Options structured to achieve the results described above. Such results are only applicable for each full 12-month period from one Roll Date to the next Roll Date, and the Index may not return such results for shorter or longer periods. The value of each Index is calculated daily by Cboe Options utilizing a rules-based options valuation model.
Under Normal Market Conditions,
The market for S&P 500 Index Options traded on Cboe Options, including FLEX Options, is among the most liquid markets in the world. FLEX Options are a subset of S&P 500 Index options traded on Cboe Options.
Every FLEX Option order submitted to Cboe Options is exposed to a competitive auction process for price discovery. The process begins with a request for quote (“RFQ”) in which the interested party establishes the terms of the FLEX Options contract. The RFQ solicits interested market participants, including on-floor market makers, remote market makers trading electronically, and member firm traders, to respond to the RFQ with bids or offers through a competitive process. This solicitation contains all of the contract specifications-underlying, size, type of option, expiration date, strike price, exercise style and settlement basis. During a specified amount of time, responses to the RFQ are received and at the end of that time period, the initiator can decide whether to accept the best bid or offer. The process occurs under the rules of Cboe Options which means that customer transactions are effected according to the principles of a fair and orderly market following trading procedures and policies developed by Cboe Options.
The Exchange believes that sufficient protections are in place to protect against market manipulation of each Fund's Shares and S&P 500 Index Options and Comparable ETF Options for several reasons: (i) the diversity, liquidity, and market cap of the securities underlying the S&P 500 Index;
Trading in the Shares and the underlying investments will be subject to the federal securities laws and Exchange, Cboe Options, FINRA, and, with respect to the Comparable ETF Options, other U.S. options exchanges' rules and surveillance programs.
The Exchange has in place a surveillance program for transactions in ETFs to ensure the availability of information necessary to detect and deter potential manipulations and other trading abuses, thereby making the Shares less readily susceptible to manipulation. Further, the Exchange believes that because the assets in each Fund's portfolio, which are comprised primarily of FLEX Options on the S&P 500 Index, will be acquired in extremely liquid and highly regulated markets,
The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded options contracts with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG and may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded options contracts from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded options contracts from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
As noted above, S&P 500 Index Options are among the most liquid options in the world and derive their value from the actively traded S&P 500 Index components. The contracts are cash-settled with no delivery of stocks or ETFs, and trade in competitive auction markets with price and quote transparency. The Exchange believes the highly regulated options markets and the broad base and scope of the S&P 500 Index make securities that derive their value from that index less susceptible to market manipulation in view of market capitalization and liquidity of the S&P 500 Index components, price and quote transparency, and arbitrage opportunities.
The Exchange believes that the liquidity of the markets for S&P 500 Index securities, S&P 500 Index Options, including FLEX Options, and other related derivatives is sufficiently great to deter fraudulent or manipulative acts associated with the price of a Fund's Shares. The Exchange also believes that such efficiency and liquidity are sufficient to support the creation and redemption mechanism. Coupled with the extensive surveillance programs of the SROs described above, the Exchange does not believe that trading in a Fund's Shares would present manipulation concerns. Each Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage).
The Exchange represents that, except as described above, each Fund will meet each of the initial and continued listing criteria in BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3) with the exception of meeting the requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i), applicable to the listing of Index Fund Shares based upon an index of “U.S. Component Stocks.” The Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of the Shares of the Funds. A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares of each Fund will comply with all other requirements applicable to Index Fund Shares, which includes requirements relating to the dissemination of key information such as the Index value,
Quotation and last sale information for U.S. exchange-listed options contracts cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation will be available via the Options Price Reporting Authority. RFQ information for FLEX Options will be available directly from Cboe Options. The intra-day, closing and settlement prices of exchange-traded options will be readily available from the options exchanges, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or online information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. Price information on Treasury bills and other cash equivalents is available from major broker-dealer firms or market data vendors, as well as from automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or online information services. On each business day, before commencement of trading in the Shares on the Exchange during Regular Trading Hours, the portfolio that will form the basis for each Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day will be provided on the Advisor's Web site at
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Index Fund Shares. All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, reference assets, and Index, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange rules shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by a Fund or Shares to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If a Fund or Shares are not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, then, with respect to such Fund or Shares, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12. FINRA conducts certain cross-market surveillances on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory services agreement. If a Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures with respect to such Fund under Exchange Rule 14.12.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded options contracts with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG and may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded options contracts from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded options contracts from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
As noted above, S&P 500 Index Options are among the most liquid options in the world and derive their value from the actively traded S&P 500 Index components. The contracts are cash-settled with no delivery of stocks or ETFs, and trade in competitive auction markets with price and quote transparency. The Exchange believes the highly regulated options markets and the broad base and scope of the S&P 500 Index make securities that derive their value from that index less susceptible to market manipulation in view of market capitalization and liquidity of the S&P 500 Index components, price and quote transparency, and arbitrage opportunities.
The Exchange believes that the liquidity of the markets for S&P 500 Index securities, S&P 500 Index Options, and other related derivatives is sufficiently great to deter fraudulent or manipulative acts associated with the price of the Shares. The Exchange also believes that such efficiency and liquidity are sufficient to support the creation and redemption mechanism. Coupled with the extensive surveillance programs of the SROs described above, the Exchange does not believe that trading in the Shares would present manipulation concerns.
The Exchange represents that, except as it relates to the options portion of the Indexes described above, the Funds will meet and be subject to all other requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3) related to generic listing standards of the Indexes and other applicable requirements for such a series of Index Fund Shares under Rule 14.11(c) on an initial and continued listing basis, including those requirements regarding the dissemination of key information such as the Index Value, Net Asset Value, and the Intraday Indicative Value, rules governing the trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts, surveillance, and the information circular, as set forth in Exchange rules applicable to Index Fund Shares and the orders approving such rules. The Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of the Shares of the Funds. Moreover, all of the options contracts held by the Funds will trade on markets that are a member of ISG or affiliated with a member of ISG or with
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of Index Fund Shares that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to add additional detail about the purposes for which the Exchange uses securities information processor data pursuant to Rule 4759, and to make other technical corrections to that rule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to add additional detail about the purposes for which the Exchange uses securities information processor (“SIP”) data pursuant to Rule 4759, and to make other technical corrections to that rule. Rule 4759 lists the proprietary and network processor feeds that are utilized for the handling, routing, and execution of orders, as well as for the regulatory compliance processes related to those functions. The Nasdaq trading system utilizes proprietary market data as the Primary Source of quotation data for the following markets that provide a reliable direct feed: NYSE American, Nasdaq BX, CBOE EDGA, CBOE EDGX, CHX, NYSE, NYSE Arca, Nasdaq, Nasdaq PSX, CBOE BYX, and CBOE
Generally, Rule 4759 provides that the Primary Source of data is used for the handling, routing, and execution of orders, as well as for the regulatory compliance processes related to those functions, unless it is delayed by a configurable amount compared to the Secondary Source of data. While this is true for quotation data used by the trading system for the handling, routing, and execution of orders, and also regulatory compliance processes related to those functions, including, for example, determination of trade-throughs under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the Exchange uses SIP data for certain trade and administrative messages. For example, the Exchange uses SIP data for limit-up limit-down price bands, market-wide circuit breaker decline and status messages, Regulation SHO state messages, trading state messages (
The Exchange therefore proposes to amend Rule 4759 to provide that the Nasdaq System consumes
Finally, the Exchange proposes to make additional technical amendments to Rule 4759. Specifically, several of the exchanges and direct market data feeds described in the rule have been renamed since the Exchange adopted the rule. The Exchange therefore propose to: (1) Rename the exchanges described in the rule so that the exchanges are identified by their new names,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors and the public interest because it provides additional transparency around the purposes for which the Exchange uses SIP data. The proposed rule change does not change the operation of the Exchange or its use of data feeds; rather it clarifies the Exchange's rules with regard to information consumed from the SIP. Specifically, the proposed rule change indicates that the Exchange uses SIP data for certain administrative messages, including, limit-up limit-down price bands, market-wide circuit breaker decline and status messages, Regulation SHO state messages, and trading state messages (
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to use SIP data as the primary source for administrative messages that originate from the SIP and may or may not be available on particular proprietary market data feeds. Although quote data used for the handling, routing, and execution of orders is typically available with a lower latency over the direct feeds, the same is not true for the administrative messages described above that originate from the SIP and are re-disseminated (or not disseminated at all) by the various direct feeds. The Exchange therefore believes that it is consistent with the public interest and protection of investors to get this information directly from the SIP,
The proposed rule change also makes certain technical amendments to Rule 4759, including updating the names of exchanges that have been renamed since the adoption of this rule. The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors to update the names of the exchanges listed in Rule 4759 as this change will make it easier for market participants to identify the exchanges for which the Exchange uses the direct feed and/or SIP for the purposes described in the rule. Furthermore, the proposed rule change replaces the names of the direct feeds with a generic notation that the “Direct Feed” is used. The Exchange believes that this change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as the exchanges may change the names of their data feeds periodically, resulting in the list being out of date. Rather than update the list every time a market changes the names of their [sic] proprietary market data products, the Exchange believes that it is preferable to simply explain that the direct feed is used. Several other exchanges also similarly note that the direct feed is used rather than spelling out the names of each feed.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather would provide members and other market participants with information about the purposes for which the Exchange uses SIP data, and make other technical corrections to Rule 4759. No changes to the Exchange's trading or other systems are being introduced with the proposed rule change, and the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will increase transparency around the operation of the Exchange and its use of market data feeds without any significant impact on competition.
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
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to list and trade shares of a series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy ETF under the ETF Series Solutions Trust (the “Trust”), under Rule 14.11(c)(3) (“Index Fund Shares”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of each series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy ETF (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”) under Rule 14.11(c)(3), which governs the listing and trading of Index Fund Shares based on equity securities indexes on the Exchange. In total, the Exchange is proposing to list and trade Shares of twelve monthly series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy ETF. Each Fund will be an index-based exchange traded fund (“ETF”). The Funds will include the following: Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (January) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (February) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (March) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (April) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (May) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (June) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (July) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (August) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (September) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (October) ETF; Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (November) ETF; and Cboe Vest S&P 500® Buffer Protect Strategy (December) ETF. Each Fund will be based on the Cboe S&P 500 Buffer Protect Index (Month) Series, where “Month” is the corresponding month associated with the roll date of the applicable Fund (each an “Index” and, collectively, the “Indexes”).
The Shares will be offered by the Trust, which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on February 9, 2012. The Trust is registered with the Commission as an open-end investment company and has filed a registration statement on behalf of the Funds on Form N-1A (“Registration Statement”) with the Commission.
The Exchange also notes that the Adviser is a BZX Affiliate as defined in Rule 14.3(e)(1)(A),
Each Fund's investment objective is to track, before fees and expenses, the performance of its respective Index. The value of each Index is calculated daily by Cboe Options utilizing an option valuation model. The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the Indexes for the Funds do not meet the listing requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3) applicable to an index that consists of equity securities (and with respect to this underlying index, an index that consists of options on an index of U.S. Component Stocks),
Each Index is a rules-based options index that consists exclusively of FLexible EXchange Options on the S&P 500 Index (“FLEX Options”) listed on Cboe Options.
Each Index is designed to provide the following outcomes between Roll Dates:
•
•
•
•
Each Index includes a mix of purchased and written (sold) put and call FLEX Options structured to achieve the results described above. Such results are only applicable for each full 12-month period from one Roll Date to the next Roll Date, and the Index may not return such results for shorter or longer periods. The value of each Index is calculated daily by Cboe Options utilizing a rules-based options valuation model.
Under Normal Market Conditions,
The market for S&P 500 Index Options traded on Cboe Options, including FLEX Options, is among the most liquid markets in the world. FLEX Options are a subset of S&P 500 Index options traded on Cboe Options.
Every FLEX Option order submitted to Cboe Options is exposed to a competitive auction process for price discovery. The process begins with a request for quote (“RFQ”) in which the interested party establishes the terms of the FLEX Options contract. The RFQ solicits interested market participants, including on-floor market makers, remote market makers trading electronically, and member firm traders, to respond to the RFQ with bids or offers through a competitive process. This solicitation contains all of the contract specifications-underlying, size, type of option, expiration date, strike price, exercise style and settlement basis. During a specified amount of time, responses to the RFQ are received and at the end of that time period, the initiator can decide whether to accept the best bid or offer. The process occurs under the rules of Cboe Options which means that customer transactions are effected according to the principles of a fair and orderly market following trading procedures and policies developed by Cboe Options.
The Exchange believes that sufficient protections are in place to protect against market manipulation of each Fund's Shares and S&P 500 Index Options and Comparable ETF Options for several reasons: (i) The diversity, liquidity, and market cap of the securities underlying the S&P 500 Index;
Trading in the Shares and the underlying investments will be subject to the federal securities laws and Exchange, Cboe Options, FINRA, and, with respect to the Comparable ETF Options, other U.S. options exchanges' rules and surveillance programs.
The Exchange has in place a surveillance program for transactions in ETFs to ensure the availability of information necessary to detect and deter potential manipulations and other trading abuses, thereby making the Shares less readily susceptible to manipulation. Further, the Exchange believes that because the assets in each Fund's portfolio, which are comprised primarily of FLEX Options on the S&P 500 Index, will be acquired in extremely liquid and highly regulated markets,
The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Index Fund Shares. All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, reference assets, and Index, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange rules shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by a Fund or Shares to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If a Fund or Shares are not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, then, with respect to such Fund or Shares, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12. FINRA conducts certain cross-market surveillances on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory services agreement. If a Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures with respect to such Fund under Exchange Rule 14.12.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded options contracts with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG and may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded options contracts from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded options contracts from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
As noted above, S&P 500 Index Options are among the most liquid options in the world and derive their value from the actively traded S&P 500 Index components. The contracts are cash-settled with no delivery of stocks or ETFs, and trade in competitive auction markets with price and quote transparency. The Exchange believes the highly regulated options markets and the broad base and scope of the S&P 500 Index make securities that derive their
The Exchange believes that the liquidity of the markets for S&P 500 Index securities, S&P 500 Index Options, including FLEX Options, and other related derivatives is sufficiently great to deter fraudulent or manipulative acts associated with the price of a Fund's Shares. The Exchange also believes that such efficiency and liquidity are sufficient to support the creation and redemption mechanism. Coupled with the extensive surveillance programs of the SROs described above, the Exchange does not believe that trading in a Fund's Shares would present manipulation concerns. Each Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage).
The Exchange represents that, except as described above, each Fund will meet each of the initial and continued listing criteria in BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3) with the exception of meeting the requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i), applicable to the listing of Index Fund Shares based upon an index of “U.S. Component Stocks.” The Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of the Shares of the Funds. A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares of each Fund will comply with all other requirements applicable to Index Fund Shares, which includes requirements relating to the dissemination of key information such as the Index value,
Quotation and last sale information for U.S. exchange-listed options contracts cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation will be available via the Options Price Reporting Authority. RFQ information for FLEX Options will be available directly from Cboe Options. The intra-day, closing and settlement prices of exchange-traded options will be readily available from the options exchanges, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or online information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. Price information on Treasury bills and other cash equivalents is available from major broker-dealer firms or market data vendors, as well as from automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or online information services. On each business day, before commencement of trading in the Shares on the Exchange during Regular Trading Hours, the portfolio that will form the basis for each Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day will be provided on the Advisor's Web site at
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that the Shares of the Funds will meet each of the initial and continued listing criteria required by BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3), which includes the listing requirements for an index that is composed of equity securities, except that the Indexes consist of options on an index of U.S. Component Stocks and Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i) applies only to U.S. Component Stocks (that is, the rule provides criteria for an index composed of equity securities and not for an index that is composed of options on an index of equity securities), the Indexes do not meet the criteria set forth in Rule 14.11(c)(3).
The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Index Fund Shares. All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, reference assets, and Index, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange rules shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by a Fund or Shares to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If a Fund or Shares are not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, then, with respect to such Fund or Shares, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12. FINRA conducts certain cross-market surveillances on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory services agreement. If a Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures with respect to such Fund under Exchange Rule 14.12.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded options contracts with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG and may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded options contracts from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded options contracts from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
As noted above, S&P 500 Index Options are among the most liquid options in the world and derive their value from the actively traded S&P 500 Index components. The contracts are cash-settled with no delivery of stocks or ETFs, and trade in competitive auction markets with price and quote transparency. The Exchange believes the highly regulated options markets and the broad base and scope of the S&P 500 Index make securities that derive their value from that index less susceptible to market manipulation in view of market capitalization and liquidity of the S&P 500 Index components, price and quote transparency, and arbitrage opportunities.
The Exchange believes that the liquidity of the markets for S&P 500 Index securities, S&P 500 Index Options, and other related derivatives is sufficiently great to deter fraudulent or manipulative acts associated with the price of the Shares. The Exchange also believes that such efficiency and liquidity are sufficient to support the creation and redemption mechanism. Coupled with the extensive surveillance programs of the SROs described above, the Exchange does not believe that trading in the Shares would present manipulation concerns.
The Exchange represents that, except as it relates to the options portion of the Indexes described above, the Funds will meet and be subject to all other requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3) related to generic listing standards of the Indexes and other applicable requirements for such a series of Index Fund Shares under Rule 14.11(c) on an initial and continued listing basis, including those requirements regarding the dissemination of key information such as the Index Value, Net Asset Value, and the Intraday Indicative Value, rules governing the trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts, surveillance, and the information circular, as set forth in Exchange rules applicable to Index Fund Shares and the orders approving such rules. The Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of the Shares of the Funds. Moreover, all of the options contracts held by the Funds will trade on markets that are a member of ISG or affiliated with a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of Index Fund Shares that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 7058(c)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Appropriations Act, 2015 (Div. J, Pub. L. 115-31), notice is hereby given that, on October 30, 2017, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson determined that it is in the national interest to make up to $5.5 million available from the Emergency Reserve Fund to respond to an emerging health threat that poses severe risks to human health in Madagascar and, if the outbreak spreads beyond Madagascar, in any newly affected countries.
Allison S. Bybee, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520, (202) 647-3058,
Section 7058(c)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017 (Div. J, Pub. L. 115-31) provides that:
Of the funds appropriated by this Act under the heading “Global Health Programs”, $70,000,000 shall be made available for an Emergency Reserve Fund to address emerging health threats, and shall remain available until expended:
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
The United States Trade Representative has determined the U.S. dollar procurement thresholds to implement certain U.S. trade agreement obligations, as of January 1, 2018, for calendar years 2018 and 2019.
This notice is applicable on January 1, 2018, for calendar years 2018 and 2019.
Scott Pietan, Director of International Procurement Policy, at (202) 395-9646 or
Executive Order 12260 requires the United States Trade Representative to set the U.S. dollar procurement thresholds for application of Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511
In conformity with the provisions of Executive Order 12260, and in order to carry out U.S. trade agreement obligations, United States Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer has determined the U.S. dollar procurement thresholds, effective on January 1, 2018, for calendar years 2018 and 2019 as follows:
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$180,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$492,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$555,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$80,317; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$492,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List A Entities—$401,584;
(2) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities—$555,000;
(3) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$180,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$10,441,216.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List B entities—$555,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$12,851,327.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$80,317; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$492,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List A Entities—$401,584;
(2) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities—$555,000;
(3) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$80,317; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$492,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities—$555,000;
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$80,317; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$492,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities—$555,000;
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$180,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$492,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities—$555,000;
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$80,317; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$10,441,216.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$401,584; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$12,851,327.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$180,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$10,441,216.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities—$555,000;
(2) Procurement of construction services—$12,851,327.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$180,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$492,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities—$555,000;
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
D.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$555,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$180,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$492,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services for List B Entities—$555,000;
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
A.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$80,317; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
B.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$492,000; and
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
C.
(1) Procurement of goods and services—$555,000;
(2) Procurement of construction services—$6,932,000.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of denials.
FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 81 individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating a commercial motor vehicle (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 81 individuals who requested an exemption from the FMCSRs prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating a CMV 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)(3).
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 than, 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)(3). Therefore, the 81 applicants in this notice have been denied exemptions from the physical qualification standards in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
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 eight applicants met the diabetes requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and do not need an exemption:
The following 42 applicants were not operating CMVs in interstate commerce:
The following six applicants have had more than one hypoglycemic episode requiring hospitalization or the assistance of others, or has had one such episode but has not had one year of stability following the episode:
Kenneth E. Gilreath (OH) had other medical conditions making the applicant otherwise unqualified under the FMCSRs.
The following two applicants did not have endocrinologists willing to make statements that they are able to operate CMVs from a diabetes standpoint:
Michael L. Hawkins (GA) had other miscellaneous reasons making the applicant otherwise unqualified under the FMCSRs.
Glenn A. Bauer (SK) currently resides in Canada. He is not eligible because the Federal exemption is for drivers operating only in the United States.
Patrick L. Beasley (AR) has peripheral neuropathy or circulatory insufficiency of the extremities likely to interfere with his ability to operate a CMV.
The following four applicants did not meet the minimum age criteria outlined in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1) which states that an individual must be at least 21 years old to operate a CMV in interstate commerce:
The following 15 applicants were exempt from the diabetes standard:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
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 June 10, 2017. The exemptions expire on June 10, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001, f
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On September 18, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for three individuals from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR 43652). The public comment period ended on October 18, 2017 and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391—MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: § 391.41(b)(8), paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.]
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based upon its evaluation of the three renewal exemption applications, FMCSA announces its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0381; FMCSA-2014-0382; FMCSA-2015-0115. Their exemptions are applicable as of June 10, 2017, and will expire on June 10, 2019.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 37 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 October 19, 2017. The exemptions expire on October 19, 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 September 18, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 37 individuals requesting an exemption from diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and requested comments from the public (82 FR 43642). The public comment period ended on October 18, 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. Brian Weaver stated that if the drivers have their diabetes in check the exemption will be fine. FMCSA has requirements that all diabetes applicants must meet to obtain a Federal Diabetes Exemption. All of the listed applicants on this
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 September 18, 2017,
These 37 applicants have had ITDM over a range of one to 38 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/
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 37 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 applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 27 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before January 10, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0235 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 27 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e). Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Mr. Alirez, 60, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Alirez understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Alirez meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Mexico.
Mr. Boothe, 64, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Boothe understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Boothe meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Carlson, 71, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carlson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carlson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Carstens, 46, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carstens understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carstens meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Conaway, 62, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Conaway understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Conaway meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from Delaware.
Mr. Cope, 78, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or
Mr. Dockhorn, 59, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dockhorn understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dockhorn meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Eniade, 60, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Eniade understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Eniade meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Missouri.
Mr. Evans, 53, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Evans understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Evans meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Hickman, 34, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hickman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hickman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Missouri.
Mr. Holmes, 46, has had ITDM since 1986. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Holmes understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Holmes meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. McDonald, 71, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McDonald understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McDonald meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.
Mr. Mook, 56, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mook understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mook meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Owens, 41, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Owens understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
Mr. Paquette, 57, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Paquette understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Paquette meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Payne, 57, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Payne understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Payne meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Pearson, 54, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pearson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pearson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Pellish, 59, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pellish understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pellish meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Plecki, 28, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Plecki understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Plecki meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Pulgarin-Gomez, 32, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pulgarin-Gomez understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pulgarin-Gomez meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Reintsma, 49, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Reintsma understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Reintsma meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Wakefield, 58, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wakefield understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wakefield meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Mississippi.
Mr. Whitehead, 54, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
Mr. Wilson, 47, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wilson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wilson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Writz, 30, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Writz understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Writz meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Idaho.
Mr. Yarron, 39, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Yarron understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Yarron meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland.
Mr. Young, 58, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Young understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Young meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
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 Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors meeting.
The meeting will be held on December 14, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.
The meeting will be open to the public at the; Towers at Wildwood, 1st Floor Conference Center—East Tower, 3200 Windy Hill Road, Atlanta, GA 30339, and via conference call. Those not attending the meeting in person may call 1-877-422-1931, passcode 2855443940, to listen and participate in the meeting.
Open to the public.
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may
Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 178 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 January 10, 2018.
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-2007-29035; FMCSA-2008-0293; FMCSA-2009 0242; FMCSA-2011-0277; FMCSA-2011-0278; FMCSA-2013-0184; FMCSA-2013-0187; FMCSA-2013-0190; FMCSA-2015-0336; FMCSA-2015-0337 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 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 178 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 178 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the diabetes requirement (74 FR 48338; 74 FR 62883; 80 FR 74196; 73 FR 63042; 73 FR 75163; 80 FR 70067; 81 FR 6326; 78 FR 63298; 78 FR 76397; 72 FR 62514; 72 FR 71996; 76 FR 64165; 76 FR 78718; 76 FR 66120; 76 FR 79759; 78 FR 64267; 78 FR 77784; 80 FR 74190; 81 FR 6332; 78 FR 65034; 79 FR 3917). They have maintained their required 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. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that
As of December 1, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 48338; 74 FR 62883; 80 FR 74196):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2009-0242. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 1, 2017, and will expire on December 1, 2019.
As of December 10, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following six 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 63042; 73 FR 75163; 80 FR 74196):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2008-0293. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 10, 2017, and will expire on December 10, 2019.
As of December 15, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 35 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 70067; 81 FR 6326):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0336. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 15, 2017, and will expire on December 15, 2019.
As of December 17, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 51 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 63298; 78 FR 76397; 80 FR 74196):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0187. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 17, 2017, and will expire on December 17, 2019.
As of December 19, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 24 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 62514; 72 FR 71996; 76 FR 64165; 76 FR 78718; 80 FR 74196):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2007-29035; FMCSA-2011-0277. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 19, 2017, and will expire on December 19, 2019.
As of December 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0278. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 22, 2017, and will expire on December 22, 2019.
As of December 24, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 64267; 78 FR 77784; 80 FR 74196):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0184. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 24, 2017, and will expire on December 24, 2019.
As of December 29, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 26 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 74190; 81 FR 6332):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0337. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 29, 2017, and will expire on December 29, 2019.
As of December 30, 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 rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 74190; 81 FR 6332):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0190. Their exemptions are applicable as of December 30, 2017, and will expire on December 30, 2019.
As of December 31, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Gary L. Crawford (OH) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 65034; 79 FR 3917; 80 FR 74196).
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0190. The exemption is applicable as of December 31, 2017, and will expire on December 31, 2019.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (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 submit an annual ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; 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 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. 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 178 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. 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 final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 88 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On July 20, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 88 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR 33542). The public comment period ended on August 21, 2017 and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 88 renewal exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(10):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of July and are discussed below:
As of July 2, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 32 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (70 FR 2701; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 30997; 72 FR 8417; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR 36099; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27015; 74 FR 7097; 74 FR 11988; 74 FR 15584; 74 FR 19270; 74 FR 21427; 74 FR 21796; 74 FR 26466; 75 FR 19674; 75 FR 65057; 76 FR 17481; 76 FR 25762; 76 FR 25766; 76 FR 28125; 76 FR 37173; 76 FR 37885; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 74731; 78 FR 800; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR 12815; 78 FR 22596; 78 FR 22602; 78 FR 24300; 78 FR 26106; 78 FR 37270; 78 FR 57679; 79 FR 23797; 80 FR 603; 80 FR 12248; 80 FR 14220; 80 FR 14223; 80 FR 16502; 80 FR 18696; 80 FR 22773; 80 FR 25766; 80 FR 26139; 80 FR 26320; 80 FR 29152; 80 FR 31640; 80 FR 31957; 80 FR 33011; 80 FR 45573; 80 FR 48409):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-26653; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2010-0327; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2015-0048. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 2, 2017, and will expire on July 2, 2019.
As of July 7, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following eight individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (80 FR 31636; 80 FR 48413):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0049. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 7, 2017, and will expire on July 7, 2019.
As of July 9, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following five individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR 41188; 78 FR 27281; 78 FR 41188; 80 FR 33007):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0028. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 9, 2017, and will expire on July 9, 2019.
As of July 16, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (74 FR 26461; 74 FR 34630; 76 FR 1493; 76 FR 12408; 76 FR 37168; 78 FR 51269):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2009-0413; FMCSA-2009-0121. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 16, 2017, and will expire on July 16, 2019.
As of July 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (72 FR 72666; 72 FR 25831; 74 FR 19270; 76 FR 29022; 76 FR 34135; 76 FR 44082; 78 FR 34140; 78 FR 51268; 80 FR 36398):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2011-0102. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 22, 2017, and will expire on July 22, 2019.
As of July 23, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (80 FR 35699; 80 FR 48404):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0052. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 23, 2017, and will expire on July 23, 2019.
As of July 31, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following five individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (76 FR 25766; 76 FR 37885; 78 FR 37270; 80 FR 31640):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0192. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 31, 2017, and will expire on July 31, 2019.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 16 individuals for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Comments must be received on or before January 10, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0024 using any of the following methods:
•
online instructions for submitting comments.
•
•
•
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 16 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard red, green, and amber.
In July 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to meet (Qualification of Drivers; Vision Waivers, 57 FR 31458, July 16, 1992). The current Vision Exemption Program was established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the statutes governing exemptions made by § 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision standards of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used three consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first two years with their experiences in the final year.
Mr. Andersen, 48, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/125, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “I certify that in my medical opinion, this patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Andersen reported that he has driven straight trucks for two years, accumulating 60,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Connecticut. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Arends, 40, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Arends does have sufficient vision to meet the requirements for a commercial driving license.” Mr. Arends reported that he has driven straight trucks for six years, accumulating 141,120 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Colorado. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Ball, 48, has had optic atrophy in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “It is my impression that Darin is safe to drive a commercial vehicle due to excellent vision OD, as is evidenced by his history of driving very large vehicles/equipment for the fire department.” Mr. Ball reported that he has driven straight trucks for 29 years, accumulating 754,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from New York. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Boyd, 63, has keratoconus in his left eye since 2000. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Freddie
Mr. Buchanan, 50, has had optic atrophy in his right eye since 2000. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “He has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Buchanan reported that he has driven straight trucks for 27 years, accumulating 140,400 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 27 years, accumulating 13,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New Mexico. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Eister, 53, has a retinal detachment in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Since he has had the central vision loss of the left eye since he was around 16 and has been stable and will continue to stay the same and knows no other difference, I feel he is safe to continue to operate a commercial vehicle like he has for the last 37 years.” Mr. Eister reported that he has driven straight trucks for 32 years, accumulating 998,400 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 14 years, accumulating 140,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Kennedy, 67, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2014. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Kennedy's vision of 20/15 in the right eye allows him to operate a commercial motor vehicle . . . ” Mr. Kennedy reported that he has driven buses for nine years, accumulating 580,500 miles. He holds an operator's license from Maine. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Kirchner, 48, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/125, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Kirchner, in my opinion, has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Kirchner reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for ten years, accumulating 585,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Ms. Lowe, 41, has had a corneal scar in her left eye since 2004. The visual acuity in her right eye is 20/20, and in her left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2017, her optometrist stated, “It is my professional opinion that Veronica does have sufficient vision to perform all driving tasks required to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Ms. Lowe reported that she has driven tractor-trailer combinations for five years, accumulating 375,000 miles. She holds a Class A CDL from Idaho. Her driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Meyer, 36, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion Michael has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Meyer reported that he has driven straight trucks for 21 years, accumulating 168,000 miles, and buses for ten years, accumulating 2,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 15 mph.
Mr. Peevyhouse, 39, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Chris continues to have sufficient vision to perform the tasks of operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Peevyhouse reported that he has driven straight trucks for nine years, accumulating 166,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Richardson, 34, has a retinal scar in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 1999. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Richardson has sufficient visual ability to operate a Commercial Vehicle.” Mr. Richardson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 117,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Indiana. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Soland, 64, has had a corneal scar in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Soland reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14 years, accumulating 84,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Sunkler, 52, has had nystagmus in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Patient demonstrates sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle with corrective lenses” Mr. Sunkler reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 2.1 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Tegeler, 55, has macular edema in his left eye since 2013. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my professional opinion, Mr. Brian Tegeler
Mr. Wrice, 51, has had a chorioretinal scar in his right eye since 2012. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion the candidate's vision function is sufficient to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Wrice reported that he has driven straight trucks for ten years, accumulating 120,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for two years, accumulating 60,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
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 and material 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 Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified below.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 9, 2018.
Submit written comments on the ICR activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590; or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB Control Number 2130-0500,” and should also include the title of the ICR. Alternatively, comments may be faxed to (202) 493-6216 or (202) 493-6497, or emailed to Mr. Brogan at
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292) or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132).
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA believes that soliciting public comment will promote its efforts to reduce the administrative and
The summaries below describe the ICRs that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
FRA hereby informs the regulated community of railroads and the general public that it is revising the instructions for Form FRA F 6180.57, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident Report, to capture information concerning post-accident toxicological testing for certain human-factor, highway-rail grade crossing accidents and incidents in the narrative block of this form. The newly revised 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219.201(a), effective on June 12, 2017, requires post-accident toxicological testing of railroad employees when one or more of five specific requirements are met for certain human-factor categories of highway-rail grade crossing accidents and incidents.
FRA will begin the process to add a block to Form FRA F 6180.57 to accommodate this requirement. In the interim, if railroads perform drug and alcohol testing on any employee involved in a highway-rail grade crossing accident, FRA is requesting the railroad place the drug and alcohol coding information in Item No. 54, “Narrative Description,” of Form FRA F 6180.57.
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and its implementing regulations (5 CFR 1320.5-12), FRA published the two required
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that FRA is forwarding the Information Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICRs describe the information collections and their expected burden. On September 13, 2017, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICRs.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 10, 2018.
Submit written comments on the ICRs to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via email to OMB at the following address:
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages.
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summaries below describe the ICRs that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
Paragraph (d) of 49 CFR 232.3 requires the cars to be identified by a card attached to the side of the equipment specifically noting and signed by the shipper that the car is being moved under the authority of that paragraph. Railroads typically use carrier bad order forms or tags for these purposes. These forms are readily available from all carrier repair facilities. If a car moving under 49 CFR 232.3(d) is not properly tagged, a carrier is not allowed to move the car. Section 232.3(d)(3) does not require carriers or shippers to retain cards or tags. When a car bearing the two tags for movement under this provision arrives at its destination, the tags are simply removed. FRA estimates approximately 400 cars per year are moved under this regulation. Railroad employees use the information collected to ensure that cars moved in accordance with Order 13528 arrive at the correct destination. These records are not maintained for the purpose of information collection per se.
The information collected under this rule is used by FRA to ensure railroads operating camp cars comply with all the requirements mandated in this regulation to protect the health and safety of camp car occupants. Specifically, the information collected is used by FRA inspectors to verify that railroads operating camp cars inspect each water hydrant, hose, or nozzle used for supplying potable water to a camp car water system prior to use and keep records of these inspections required under § 228.323. Each such hose or nozzle used must be cleaned and sanitized as part of the inspection. A signed, dated record of this inspection must be kept within the camp for the period of the connection. When the connection is terminated, a copy of each
Furthermore, under this section, FRA inspectors verify that railroads keep essential certification records/copies regarding the safety of potable water from a different local source. The requirement states that each time that potable water is drawn from a different local source, the railroad must obtain a certificate from a State or local health authority indicating that the water from this source is of a quality not less than that prescribed in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or obtain such a certificate by a certified laboratory following testing for compliance with those standards. The current certification must be kept within the camp for the duration of the connection. When the connection is terminated, a copy of each of these records must be submitted promptly to a centralized location for the railroad and maintained for one year from the date the connection was terminated. Certification by a State or local health authority or testing by a certified laboratory and FRA review of certification records help ensure that drinking water used by camp car occupants meets Federal standards and is safe for consumption.
Also, under § 228.323, FRA inspectors verify that necessary flushing records are kept by railroads operating camp cars. Under the requirement, each potable water system must be drained and flushed with a disinfecting solution at least once every 120 days. The railroad must maintain a record of the draining and flushing of each separate system within the camp for the last two drain and flush cycles. The record must contain the date of the work and the name(s) of the individual(s) performing the work. The original record must be maintained with the camp. A copy of each of these records must be sent to a centralized location for the railroad and maintained for one year. To be safe for consumption by camp car occupants, it is critical that potable water systems be drained and flushed periodically with a disinfecting solution to prevent the growth of bacteria that causes sickness. FRA closely monitors the required flushing and taste records to ensure that this necessary task is completed on a continuing basis while camp cars are operational, especially when camp car occupants report experiencing taste problems with the drinking water.
Under § 228.331, FRA ensures that any railroad using camp cars submits a master emergency preparedness plan pertaining to life safety and prominently display a copy of this plan in all their camp cars so that all camp occupants can view it at their convenience. FRA reviews each plan to ensure that it addresses the following items: (1) The means used to be aware of and notify all occupants of impending weather threats, including thunderstorms, tornados, hurricanes, floods and other major weather related risks; (2) shelter-in-place and emergency-evacuation instructions for each of the specific threats identified; and (3) the address and telephone number of the nearest emergency medical facility and directions on how to get there from the camp car. Camp car occupants use this information to take necessary action to protect their lives and health.
Finally, under § 228.333, railroads must take remedial action within 24 hours after receiving a good faith notice from a camp car occupant or an employee labor organization or notice from FRA of non-compliance with this subpart E. Railroads use the good faith notices or notice from FRA to correct each non-complying condition on a camp car. If the non-complying condition is not correctable, the railroad has to cease use of the camp car as sleeping quarters for each occupant. FRA inspectors use this information to ensure that railroads take necessary remedial actions for camp cars with non-complying conditions.
Additionally, amended part 214 requires specific training and qualification of operators of roadway maintenance machines that can hoist, lower, and horizontally move a suspended load.
Finally, part 232 clarifies the existing training requirements for railroad and contractor employees who perform inspections, tests, or maintenance of brake system.
FRA uses the information collected to ensure each employer—railroad or contractor—conducting operations subject to new part 243, and railroads subject to amended parts 214 and 232 as appropriate, have developed, adopted, modified, submitted, and complied with a training program for each category and subcategory of safety-related railroad employee. Each program must have training components identified so that FRA will understand how the program works when it reviews the program for approval. Further, FRA reviews the required training programs to ensure they include the following: Initial, ongoing, and on-the-job criteria; testing and skills evaluation measures designed to foster continual compliance with Federal standards; and the identification of critical safety defects and plans for immediate remedial actions to correct them.
In response to petitions for reconsideration, FRA has extended the effective date for developing the required training program under § 243.101 for employers with 400,000 or more total annual employee work hours to January 1, 2019, and for employers with less than 400,000 total annual employee work hours to May 1, 2020.
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the revisions of the following information collection: Clean Fuel Cell Grant Program.
Comments must be submitted before February 9, 2018.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Vanessa Williams, Office of Program Management (202) 366-4818 or email:
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice announces a final environmental action taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a project in Los Angeles County, California. The purpose of this notice is to announce publicly the environmental decision by FTA on the subject project and to activate the limitation on any claims that may challenge this final environmental action.
By this notice, FTA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to Section 139(l) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). A claim seeking judicial review of FTA actions announced herein for the listed public transportation projects will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before May 10, 2018.
Nancy-Ellen Zusman, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, (312) 353-2577 or Alan Tabachnick, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Environmental Programs, (202) 366-8541. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Notice is hereby given that FTA has taken final agency action by issuing a certain approval for the public transportation
This notice applies to all FTA decisions on the listed project as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such action was taken, including, but not limited to, NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321-4375], Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 470f], and the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q]. This notice does not, however, alter or extend the limitation period for challenges of project decisions subject to previous notices published in the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before January 10, 2018.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before January 10, 2018.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before December 26, 2017.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one person that has been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of this person are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel. 202-622-4855; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's Web site (
On December 5, 2017, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning the notification requirement for transfer of partnership interest in electing investment partnership.
Written comments should be received on or before February 9, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning the statement of liability of lender, surety, or other person for withholding taxes.
Written comments should be received on or before February 9, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning the statement of liability of lender, surety, or other person for withholding taxes.
Written comments should be received on or before February 9, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint is announcing pricing for the 2018 World War I Centennial Silver Dollar products as follows:
Ann Bailey, Program Manager for Numismatic and Bullion; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.
Public Law 113-212.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission is proposing rules related to the current system of regulating rates and classes for market dominant products. Proposed rules are the result of a Commission statutory review wherein the Commission was required to review whether the system was achieving the objectives, taking into account the factors, established by Congress under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. This notice informs the public of the proposed rules, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3), 10 years after the enactment of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA),
On December 20, 2016, the Commission initiated its review by issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR).
On December 1, 2017, the Commission issued its findings concerning the review.
Since the review concludes that the system for regulating rates and classes has not achieved the objectives, taking into account the factors, the Commission is initiating the instant rulemaking. The purpose of this rulemaking is to propose such modifications to existing regulations or adopt such an alternative system through new regulations that the Commission deems necessary to achieve the objectives of 39 U.S.C. 3622(b).
As explained more fully below, 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3) authorizes this rulemaking for the purpose of modifying existing regulations or adopting an alternative system as necessary to meet the objectives. The Commission also has standing authority to revise the existing system for regulating rates and classes as necessary. 39 U.S.C. 3622(a). Additionally, the Commission has general authority to promulgate rules and regulations, establish procedures, and take any other action deemed necessary and proper to carry out its functions and obligations, as prescribed under title 39 of the United States Code. 39 U.S.C. 503.
This rulemaking proposes changes to title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The rules in 39 CFR part 3010, subparts A, B, C, and E (existing §§ 3010.1
The next step in this rulemaking process is critical to the Commission's responsibility under the PAEA—seeking informed community participation and insight. The Commission has implemented a robust comment and reply period designed to elicit sound criticism of, concurrence with, or alternatives to the Commission's proposed approach.
Section 3622(d)(3) of title 39 of the United States Code directs the Commission to conduct a review of the market dominant ratemaking system 10 years after the enactment of the PAEA in order to determine whether the system is achieving the objectives enumerated at 39 U.S.C. 3622(b), taking into account the factors enumerated at 39 U.S.C. 3622(c). This provision prescribes a two-step process. First, the Commission must determine whether the current ratemaking system is achieving the PAEA's objectives, taking into account its factors.
[The text of 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3) was removed to comply with the
The Commission completed the first step of this process on December 1, 2017, when it issued an order announcing its findings with regard to the current ratemaking system.
The Commission now proceeds to the second step of the process established by section 3622(d)(3). This provision authorizes the Commission to promulgate rules either modifying the current ratemaking system or adopting an alternative ratemaking system, “as necessary to achieve the objectives.”
[The text of 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3) was removed to comply with the
The Commission interprets this provision as providing broad authority to make changes to the market dominant ratemaking system. The authority to make changes to the system provided by
[The text of 39 U.S.C. 3622(a) was removed to comply with the
Finally, the Commission has general authority, pursuant to section 503, to promulgate rules and regulations and establish procedures.
[The text of 39 U.S.C. 503 was removed to comply with the
The comments received in response to the ANPR that discuss the Commission's rulemaking authority primarily focus on two aspects of that authority pursuant to section 3622(d)(3): The authority to eliminate or modify the price cap and the authority to modify workshare discount provisions. The Appendix to this Order provides a list of commenters and citations to the comments filed in this docket in response to Order No. 3673.
With regard to the price cap, multiple commenters take the position that the plain language of 39 U.S.C. 3622 constrains the Commission's ability to eliminate, modify, or replace the price cap. ANM
Commenters also advance a number of structural arguments for why section 3622 precludes any changes to the price cap. ANM
ABA focuses on the use of the word “system” throughout section 3622, arguing that “the consistent use of the word `system' throughout the section, rather than qualifiers such as `first system' or `initial system' or `system preceding the 10 year review,' suggests Congress contemplated the same requirements applying to any and all rate structures the Commission would create.” ABA Comments at 8-10. GCA focuses on the use of the phrase “requirement,” arguing that “[w]hen a particular phrase is used repeatedly in the same enactment, it is customary to give it the same meaning each time it appears . . . [which] suggests that . . . if a feature of the existing system is present because [section] 3622(d) makes it a `requirement,' then it must remain in any modified or alternative system which emerges from the tenth-year review.”
Other commenters focus on the purported primacy of quantitative pricing standards over other provisions of the PAEA. ANM
MMA
Finally, these commenters highlight prior instances where the Commission is alleged to have ratified this view. ABA cites a prior order by the Commission where the Commission observed that “the role of the price cap is central to ratemaking, and the integrity of the price cap is indispensable if the incentive to reduce costs is to remain effective.”
ABA, ANM
Based on this interpretation, MMA
Other commenters assert that the plain language of section 3622 permits the Commission to modify or replace the price cap.
Multiple commenters also base their arguments with regard to the price cap on the PAEA's legislative history. ANM
On the other hand, the Postal Service, NALC, and APWU all cite to a floor statement by Senator Susan Collins to the effect that the PAEA would provide 10 years of rate stability, after which the Commission would review the ratemaking system and, if necessary, modify it or adopt an alternative system.
Multiple commenters take the position that interpreting section 3622(d)(3) broadly would produce unconstitutional results. ANM
MMA
Based on all of the foregoing, ANM
The Postal Service, on the other hand, disagrees that a broad interpretation of Commission authority would present a concern with regard to constitutional separation of powers principles. Postal Service Comments at 25. The Postal Service deems section 3622(d)(3)'s delegation of authority to the Commission to be “unremarkable.”
The second major topic addressed is the workshare discount provisions contained in 39 U.S.C. 3622(e). Most commenters addressing workshare discounts presume worksharing is within the scope of this proceeding and suggest worksharing related changes.
The Postal Service also asserts that the PAEA's legislative history demonstrates that Congress intended the requirement that workshare discounts not exceed avoided costs to apply regardless of the regulatory system promulgated by the Commission under section 3622(a). Postal Service Comments at 30-31. GCA likewise asserts that when enacting the PAEA, Congress codified the Commission's long-standing practice on workshare discounts into a set of statutory requirements, which GCA contends the Commission lacks authority to change. GCA Comments at 34.
Finally, the Postal Service and GCA assert that the Commission has previously affirmed the view that the workshare discount standards are separate and distinct from other provisions of section 3622, including the objectives and factors that underlie the review mandated by section 3622(d)(3).
The Commission's determination that the system has not achieved the objectives, taking into account the factors, triggered the applicability of the second step of the system review contemplated by section 3622(d)(3).
Section 3622(d)(3) provides the Commission with two discrete options. The Commission “
The first option is to “make such modification . . . as necessary to achieve the objectives.” 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3). This language connotes moderate change.
The scope of the term “alternative system” is given meaning by the statutory context in which the provision arises. For instance, section 3622(c)(4) limits the scope of “alternative means of sending and receiving letters and other mail matter at reasonable costs” to alternative means that are “available.” 39 U.S.C. 3622(c)(4). By contrast, the only limit section 3622(d)(3) imposes on the Commission's ability to adopt an alternative system is that it must be “as necessary to achieve the objectives.” 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3). This comparison confirms that the usage of the term “alternative system” is intentionally broad. Congress knew how to impose express limits on the scope of “alternative system” but chose not to do so with respect to the Commission's authority under section 3622(d)(3).
The plain language of section 3622(d)(3) leaves it to the Commission's discretion to determine what regulatory changes, if any, are logically required to achieve the PAEA's objectives.
Although some commenters focus on the title of section 3622(d)—“Requirements”—as precluding changes to the existing price cap, the plain meaning of the statute confirms that section 3622(d)(3) confers broad authority. The “Requirements” title alone is not dispositive. A statute's title can aid in resolving ambiguity but has no power to enlarge the text or confer powers.
The argument that the scope of subsection (a) limits the scope of subsection (d)(3) is contrary to the plain meaning and purpose of both subsections. First, the two subsections employ different language. The use of a parenthetical and the conjunction “and” in subsection (a) confirms the connection between the meanings of “establish” and “revise” as referring to the setup and periodic recalibration of the initial ratemaking system.
By contrast, subsection (d)(3) is not triggered until several separate and specific requirements are met. Subsection (d)(3) requires a review of the ratemaking system to take place 10
The different language used demonstrates that Congress intended to create two separate but complementary processes: The Commission's general authority to set up and periodically recalibrate the initial ratemaking system under subsection (a); and the Commission's specific authority to review the initial system after 10 years and modify or replace any part of the system as necessary to achieve the objectives of the PAEA.
Moreover, the two subsections serve different purposes. Subsection (a) confers “authority generally” to the Commission regarding its duty to establish new regulations within a set timeframe and revise them as appropriate. Subsection (a) was necessary to address the pre-PAEA view that the Postal Rate Commission had “a very important, but expressly limited, role.”
The reliance commenters place on Commission precedent is misplaced. None of the cited precedent involved an interpretation of the scope of 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3). Because subsection (d)(3) is not even triggered until
With regard to the workshare discount provisions contained within section 3622(e), which a handful of commenters assert are not part of the ratemaking system, the Commission finds that the phrase “established under this section” in section 3622(d)(3) refers to section 3622 in its entirety, including the workshare discount provisions in section 3622(e). This conclusion derives from both the plain meaning of the term “section,” as well as the fact that within section 3622(d)(3) there is a clear differentiation made between “sections” and “subsections.”
In sum, the plain meaning of the PAEA grants the Commission broad authority to engage in rulemaking in order to modify or replace the current ratemaking system. The scope of that authority is limited only by what is necessary to achieve the PAEA's objectives.
With regard to legislative history, the PAEA was designed to balance several objectives, including the Postal Service's financial needs and mailers' need for predictable and stable rates. To achieve 10 years of rate stability, the ratemaking system was intended to operate in accordance with specific statutory requirements and limitations. As previously described, after 10 years, the initial system would be subject to Commission review. If the Commission determined that the system did not achieve the PAEA's objectives taking into account its factors, then the Commission would have the authority to modify or replace the system as necessary to achieve the objectives. The legislative history confirms this structured approach. Specifically, the final version of the PAEA, H.R. 6407, represented a compromise between two bills—H.R. 22 and S. 662.
The first bill, H.R. 22, was introduced by Representative John McHugh on January 4, 2005, and reported back to the House with amendments on April 28, 2005. 151 Cong. Rec. H72 (daily ed. Jan. 4, 2005); 151 Cong. Rec. H2734 (daily ed. Apr. 28, 2005). On July 26, 2005, H.R. 22, as amended, was passed by the House of Representatives. 151 Cong. Rec. H6511, H6548-H6549 (daily ed. Jul. 26. 2005) (Roll Call No. 430). As discussed by GCA and ANM
The second bill, S. 622, was introduced by Senator Collins on March 17, 2005, and reported back to the Senate with amendments on July 14, 2005. 151 Cong. Rec. S2994, S3012-S3031 (daily ed. Mar. 17, 2005); 151 Cong. Rec. S8301 (daily ed. Jul. 14, 2005). On February 9, 2006, the Senate considered those amendments and additional amendments to S. 662 by unanimous consent. 152 Cong. Rec. S898-S927 (daily ed. Feb. 9, 2006). Under this bill, proposed section 3622(d) was titled “Requirements,” and was subdivided into subsections titled “In general” and “Limitations.”
Also on February 9, 2006, through unanimous consent, the Senate passed H.R. 22,
None of the versions of the bills described above included the review provision that would eventually be codified at 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3). Nor was this provision referenced in hearings, committee reports, or the presidential signing statement. Instead, 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3) was included only in the final version of the PAEA introduced on December 7, 2006. H.R. 6407, 109th Cong., at 7 (2006). Pursuant to a compromise between the Senate and the House, H.R. 6407 blended together concepts appearing in the separate versions of the bills described above, including combining the objectives and factors.
There is only one statement in the Congressional Record about the review provision, and it was made upon receipt of the final version of the postal reform bill on December 8, 2006. Senator Collins, the Senate sponsor of postal reform, remarked:
The Postal Service will have much more flexibility, but the rates will be capped at the CPI. That is an important element of providing 10 years of predictable, affordable rates, which will help every customer of the Postal Service plan. After 10 years, the Postal Regulatory Commission will review the rate cap and, if necessary, and following a notice and comment period, the Commission will be authorized to modify or adopt an alternative system.
While this bill provides for a decade of rate stability, I continue to believe that the preferable approach was the permanent flexible rate cap that was included in the Senate-passed version of this legislation. But, on balance, this bill is simply too important, and that is why we have reached this compromise to allow it to pass. We at least will see a decade of rate stability, and I believe the Postal Rate Commission, at the end of that decade, may well decide that it is best to continue with a CPI rate cap in place. It is also, obviously, possible for Congress to act to reimpose the rate cap after it expires. But this legislation is simply too vital to our economy to pass on a decade of stability. The consequences of no legislation would be disastrous for the Postal Service, its employees, and its customers.
This statement confirms that section 3622(d)(3) was a part of a legislative compromise that required the price cap “Requirements,” as contained in the PAEA, to remain in place for 10 years, and then allowed the Commission the opportunity to review the effectiveness of this ratemaking system and potentially design a modified or alternative system.
This
Congress passed the PAEA, amending title 39, to ensure the financial viability of the Postal Service.
Finally, with regard to the constitutional infirmities alleged by some commenters, the scope of the Commission's authority under section 3622(d)(3) does not raise separation of powers issues because section 3622(d)(3) meaningfully constrains the Commission's authority.
Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress cannot delegate legislative
With regard to the Presentment Clause, the comparison made by some commenters to the Line Item Veto Act which was struck down in
Second, whereas the impermissible Line Item Veto Act required the President to make certain determinations before cancelling a provision, those determinations did not qualify his discretion as to whether to cancel or not.
Third, the impermissible Line Item Veto Act allowed the President to override the policy objectives contained in a cancelled statute, which were developed by Congress, with his own policy objectives, which were developed unilaterally.
Therefore, the Commission's authority to modify or adopt an alternative system under section 3622(d)(3) remains within the permissible bounds of the separation of powers between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch.
In conclusion, the Commission has broad authority to either modify or replace the existing market dominant ratemaking system. This authority extends to modification of regulations currently in place and the statutory rate setting requirements of section 3622 (including those applicable to workshare discounts in 39 U.S.C. 3622(e)). The constraint on the Commission's authority is that the system as implemented must be designed to achieve the objectives of section 3622(b).
In Order No. 4257, the Commission concluded that the system for regulating rates and classes did not achieve the objectives, taking into account the factors. Therefore, the Commission is proposing new regulations that it deems necessary to achieve the objectives of 39 U.S.C. 3622(b). The reasons that certain objectives were not achieved, taking into account the factors, and the proposed solutions to address these issues fall within the following broad areas.
The medium-term financial stability of the Postal Service is addressed in section C—Supplemental Rate Authority. The changes presented in this section provide the Postal Service with an additional 2 percentage points of rate authority per calendar year. This authority is available only for the first 5 full calendar years following the effective date of these regulations.
The long-term financial stability of the Postal Service is addressed in section D—Performance-Based Rate Authority. The changes presented in this section make up to an additional 1 percentage point of rate authority available per calendar year. Of this rate authority, 0.75 percentage points is allocated based on meeting operational efficiency-based rate authority requirements, and 0.25 percentage points is allocated based on meeting service quality-based rate authority requirements.
Issues related to non-compensatory classes and products are addressed in section E—Non-Compensatory Classes and Products. The changes presented in this section impose rate design requirements on non-compensatory products. The changes also provide the Postal Service with an additional 2 percentage points of rate authority per calendar year for non-compensatory classes of mail.
Issues related to inefficient rate design concerning workshare discounts are addressed in section F—Workshare Discounts. The changes presented in this section employ rate design concepts based on efficient component pricing (ECP). The proposed regulations establish bands that set the percentages of avoided costs that may be reflected in the discounts. The proposed regulations include a 3-year grace period.
Miscellaneous issues related to the rate adjustment process are addressed in section G—Enhancements to the Ratemaking Process. The changes presented in this section increase visibility into future planned rate adjustments by proposing changes to the Schedule for Regular and Predictable Rate Adjustments requirements. Changes are also proposed for the rate adjustment process, including a proposal to extend the notification period for planned rate adjustments from 45 to 90 days.
Prior to addressing these broad areas and the related proposed solutions, the Commission first provides background related to the Postal Service's financial stability in section B below. This background material provides context and supports the Commission's proposed solutions described in more detail in sections C and D.
The existing ratemaking system did not achieve the PAEA's objectives during the 10 years following the PAEA's enactment.
Moreover, although costs were reduced and operational efficiency was increased during the PAEA era, these cost reductions and operational efficiency increases were not maximized, as required by Objective 1.
Therefore, the Commission considers regulatory proposals aimed to put the Postal Service on the path to financial stability.
Most of the comments received with regard to the Postal Service's financial stability discuss the Postal Service's finances within the context of whether the Commission should keep, modify, or eliminate the current consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) price cap.
Most of the commenters in favor of keeping the CPI-U price cap generally contend that the Postal Service's current revenue is adequate to provide necessary services. ANM
ANM
MMA
ANM
Although many of these commenters acknowledge that the Postal Service's net earnings remain negative, they generally attribute this to the PAEA's requirement to prefund the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (PSRHBF) and assert that this requirement is not part of the PAEA's ratemaking system.
ANM
Several commenters state that raising the price cap would undermine rate predictability and stability. ANM
Other commenters, including ANM
Another group of commenters suggests keeping a price cap system but modifying its form. For instance, the Public Representative contends that the Postal Service's revenue under the price cap must be increased. PR Comments at 33. He proposes modifying the price cap formula to account for changes in demand (
The third group of commenters consists primarily of the Postal Service and the postal unions, who advocate that the Commission should eliminate the price cap altogether. These commenters generally take the position that revenue under the existing ratemaking system is insufficient to enable the Postal Service to maintain financial stability.
The Postal Service asserts that it has experienced a net loss every year since the PAEA was enacted, primarily due to declining mail volume. Postal Service Comments at 84-86. APWU asserts that when instituting the CPI-U price cap Congress did not foresee the changes and market forces over the past decade, including mail volume declines, an increase in the number of mail delivery points, changes in the mail mix, and an economic recession. APWU Comments at 29. NALC maintains that by depriving the Postal Service of revenue and causing it to reduce the quality and availability of its services, the price cap risks driving away even more customers. NALC Comments at 8.
The Postal Service asserts that it has dangerously low liquidity and lacks the ability to meet all of its financial obligations. Postal Service Comments at 87. It represents that it only has enough cash reserves to sustain it for approximately 29 days. Postal Service Comments at 87. NALC notes that with the Postal Service's borrowing authority exhausted and with no access to capital markets, the only source of liquidity available to the Postal Service has been its meager cash reserves. NALC Comments at 7. It asserts that this state of constrained liquidity renders the Postal Service vulnerable to an economic downturn or crisis.
The Postal Service states that constrained liquidity has prevented it from investing adequately in capital expenditures. Postal Service Comments at 88. APWU, NALC, and NPHMU echo this assertion.
With regard to operational efficiency, the Postal Service maintains that deferral of capital expenditures has become a major drag on the Postal Service's efficiency improvement efforts. Postal Service Comments at 88-90. The Postal Service asserts that despite having made significant efficiency gains and cost cuts, the available remaining efficiency gains and/or cost cuts come nowhere close to enabling the Postal Service to maintain financial stability under the existing price cap.
In addition to eliminating the price cap, APWU and NALC both suggest permitting a one-time true-up rate proceeding to reset the rate base for all classes.
As the Commission concluded in Order No. 4257, the Postal Service is not financially stable because the current ratemaking system has not assured “adequate revenues, including retained earnings, to maintain financial stability,” as required by Objective 5. Order No. 4257 at 178 (quoting 39 U.S.C. 3622(b)(5)). Therefore, the Commission determines that it would be inappropriate to retain the existing ratemaking system unchanged. Doing so would not only be contrary to Objective 5, it would negatively impact the mailing industry as a whole. According to the 2015 Envelope Manufacturing Association's U.S. Mailing Industry Jobs and Revenue Study (EMA Study), in FY 2014, the latest year data are available, the nation's mailing industry employed 7.5 million workers and generated $1.4 trillion in revenues. February 24, 2017 EMA Comments at 2. The EMA study states:
[A]lmost 85 percent of mailing industry jobs depend[] upon the delivery sector, of which the USPS is the center.
However, if one analyzes further between the public and private sector components of the delivery network (
At the other extreme, however, the Commission determines that it would be inappropriate to design a system that lacks a mechanism to limit the magnitude of price adjustments. Such a mechanism is necessary to create predictability and stability, as required by Objective 2. Order No. 4257 at 103; 39 U.S.C. 3622(b)(2).
The Commission finds, as discussed further below, that additional pricing authority is necessary to achieve the objectives of the PAEA. The Commission seeks to complement, rather than replace, the CPI-U price cap by providing discrete, clearly-defined amounts of additional rate authority. This additional rate adjustment authority is designed to put the Postal Service on the path toward generating positive net income and retained earnings. Accordingly, the Commission aims to design a ratemaking system that will put the Postal Service on the path to financial stability required by Objective 5 in a way that is consistent with the other objectives, such as Objectives 1 and 3, of the PAEA. Below the Commission describes its methodology to determine the amount and mechanism to provide that additional rate adjustment authority.
In order to estimate the appropriate amount of revenue to put the Postal Service on the path to financial stability, the Commission relies upon its three-tiered analysis detailed in Order No. 4257 as its starting point.
The Postal Service has been able to operate continuously without service interruption, consistent with the Commission's analysis demonstrating that the Postal Service has met the threshold of short-term financial stability. Order No. 4257 at 165. Beyond the short-term, however, the Postal Service's financial health is in jeopardy.
Consistent with its financial stability analysis in Order No. 4257, the Commission derives reference points for how much additional revenue would be needed to put the Postal Service on the path to medium-term financial stability and for how much additional revenue would be needed to put the Postal Service on the path to long-term financial stability. In line with this two-pronged methodology, there are two components of additional rate authority: The first to address medium-term financial stability and the second to address long-term financial stability.
Although the financial stability discussion in this Order generally parallels Order No. 4257's division into the medium-term and long-term tiers, the medium-term and long-term financial stability concepts are interrelated. As detailed in section III.D.1,
Although the cycle above is centered around medium- and long-term financial stability (Objective 5), the cycle also affects several other objectives. In particular, the cycle also includes the goals underlying Objective 1 (maximize incentives to reduce costs and increase operational efficiency) and Objective 3 (maintain high quality service standards). In Order No. 4257, the Commission found that the system did not achieve the goals of the PAEA related to each of these objectives.
Several commenters express concerns regarding the appropriate use of additional revenue by the Postal Service and the effects of any revenue increases on the Postal Service's incentives to cut costs and increase operational efficiency.
The Commission expects that its proposal will incentivize the Postal Service to take necessary steps to reduce costs. As discussed in more detail in the remainder of this section, the Postal Service will need to realize cost reductions in order for the system to achieve financial stability. The Commission also expects its proposed solution to support continued cost reduction. As demonstrated by the cycle discussed above and in more detail in section III.D.1,
The Commission intends to review the proposed regulatory changes to the market dominant ratemaking system after the supplemental rate authority expires as explained in more detail below. This time period is consistent with the recommendations for another review in the near-term made by the Public Representative (suggesting to review in 4 years)
Based on the methodology described above, the Commission proposes a two-pronged solution designed to place the Postal Service on the path to financial stability by providing rate adjustment authority in addition to the CPI-U rate authority. The Commission proposes to make available both: (1) Supplemental rate authority to put the Postal Service on the path to medium-term financial stability and (2) performance-based rate authority (contingent on the Postal Service meeting or exceeding an operational efficiency-based standard and adhering to service standard quality criteria) to put the Postal Service on the path to long-term financial stability. The reminder of this section summarizes the purpose, amount, and mechanization of each type of rate authority. The Commission provides more detailed explanations of the supplemental rate authority and performance-based rate authority,
First, the proposed supplemental rate authority aims to put the Postal Service on the path to medium-term financial stability by providing the Postal Service the opportunity to generate additional revenue to cover its obligations. In determining the amount of supplemental rate authority, the Commission uses the $2.7 billion FY 2017 net loss as its reference point.
Second, the proposed performance-based rate authority aims to put the Postal Service on the path to long-term
In the three-tiered financial stability analysis used in Order No. 4257, the Commission determined that although short-term stability was achieved under the PAEA, medium- and long-term stability were not. This section discusses the medium-term tier of the financial stability test. To be deemed financially stable in the medium-term, the Postal Service's total revenue should cover total cost (both attributable and institutional). Order No. 4257 at 165. The Commission measured this by analyzing net income, which consists of (total revenue − [attributable costs + institutional costs]).
Therefore, the Commission aims to design a ratemaking system that will put the Postal Service on the path to generating positive net income. The Commission uses Order No. 4257's medium-term stability framework for its analysis, but utilizes the FY 2017 net loss as a starting point for its calculation to put the Postal Service on the path towards medium-term financial stability. In the remainder of this section, the Commission discusses how it estimates the amount of the proposed supplemental rate authority necessary to address this net loss. The Commission then discusses how it proposes to allocate this proposed supplemental rate authority in a manner that balances the PAEA's objectives.
To estimate the amount of additional revenue that would be needed in order to put the Postal Service on the path to medium-term financial stability, the Commission uses as its starting point the FY 2017 net loss.
During the first 10 years under the PAEA, the Postal Service's net loss ranged from $2.8 billion to $15.9 billion. Order No. 4257 at 168, Table II-10. The net losses experienced over this period show that the rate adjustment authority under the existing market dominant ratemaking system was insufficient. The Commission determines that an adjustment to the system is necessary to provide the Postal Service with tools to address its ongoing net income shortfall.
Based on the FY 2017 net loss of $2.7 billion, the Postal Service would need additional revenue of $2.7 billion to achieve medium-term stability (
Taking this $2.7-billion revenue increase developed using the FY 2017 net loss as its reference point, the Commission has considered how to authorize the proposed supplemental rate authority in a manner that will put the Postal Service on the path to generating sufficient revenue to meet its medium-term obligations balancing all of the PAEA's objectives. The Commission has given weight to the commenters' concerns regarding the timing and magnitude of rate increases. Based on these concerns and the analysis in Order No. 4257, the Commission proposes to design the ratemaking system to allow for this proposed supplemental rate authority on an annual basis over a finite period.
Given the magnitude of the FY 2017 loss, the Commission finds that the most appropriate means of putting the Postal Service on a path to medium-term financial stability is to provide 2 percentage points of supplemental rate authority each year for a 5-year period, after which it ends. As discussed in section III.B.3,
Specifically, the Commission proposes to make available to the Postal Service 2 percentage points of supplemental rate authority per class of mail per calendar year for each of the first 5 full calendar years following the effective date of these proposed rules. This proposal is structured to encourage regular and stable timing and magnitude of rate increases—that is the same amount of supplemental rate authority, provided on an annual basis at the same time each year, over a finite period of years. This proposed magnitude and 5-
This proposed approach is consistent with the Commission's analyses and the resulting conclusions reached in Order No. 4257.
The Commission evaluated an alternative approach that would grant the Postal Service supplemental rate authority for use on a one-time basis. Specifically, this one-time rate adjustment would provide for 5.7 percentage points of rate authority for use during the first year following the effective date of these proposed rules.
In Figure III-1, CPI-U is estimated to be 2.05 percent each year for the next 5 years.
The Commission has considered the comments and the foregoing analysis in developing proposed subpart D to 39 CFR part 3010. The Commission proposes to allocate 2 percentage points of supplemental rate authority per class of mail per calendar year for each of the first 5 full calendar years following the effective date of these proposed rules.
This proposed supplemental rate authority will address the Postal Service's ongoing financial instability by providing the opportunity for the Postal Service to generate adequate revenue and put the Postal Service on the path to financial stability which is necessary to achieve Objective 5.
As discussed in Order No. 4257, the existing ratemaking system did not achieve the objectives during the first 10 years following the PAEA's enactment. The Commission identifies three interrelated deficiencies of the existing ratemaking system, which the Commission proposes to address through the performance-based rate authority.
The PAEA intended the market dominant ratemaking system to enable the Postal Service to achieve financial stability. Order No. 4257 at 146. To maintain financial stability, the ratemaking system must enable the Postal Service to “assure adequate revenues, including retained earnings,” as required by Objective 5.
Ideally, these three objectives would function in a harmonious cycle. The cycle begins with the path to financial stability. A financially healthy Postal Service generates adequate revenues to ensure net income, which provide retained earnings. Retained earnings enable the Postal Service to make the kinds of capital investments needed to improve operational efficiency. Capital investments that improve efficiency will also likely lead to cost reductions and help maintain high quality service standards. Maintenance of high quality service standards promotes demand for postal products, which leads to increased revenue. Increased revenue and decreased costs lead to sustained net incomes, which results in retained earnings. A related but separate component to this cycle is borrowing. Retained earnings can be used to pay down debt and borrowing can be used to finance capital investments. Figure III-2 illustrates this cycle.
However, this cycle has broken down under the existing ratemaking system because consecutive net losses have resulted in an accumulated deficit rather than retained earnings. Starting from the baseline FY 2006, Figure III-3 illustrates the Postal Service's recurring net losses and accumulated deficit during the PAEA era.
As shown in Figure III-3, the recurring net losses resulted in accumulated deficit in every year since the PAEA was enacted in FY 2007. Between FY 2008 and FY 2012, the accumulated deficit increased from $4.7 billion to $38 billion. After FY 2012, the accumulated deficit continued to grow, but at a slower rate. This was due, in part, to the exigent surcharge in place from January 2014 to April 2016.
The Postal Service has no shareholders and may not invest in stocks, bonds, or other financial instruments. Therefore, without retained earnings, its only means of financing capital investments is through revenue or borrowing. As accumulated deficit increased in the early years under the PAEA, the Postal Service began relying heavily on borrowing. It reached its $15 billion borrowing authority limit in FY 2012—5 years after the PAEA was enacted.
The accumulated deficit and lack of borrowing authority has severely restricted the Postal Service's ability to make capital improvements.
As its accumulated deficit increased, the Postal Service began to decrease its capital commitments and subsequent outlays. Figure III-5 illustrates the change in capital commitments and outlays throughout the PAEA era.
However, even with the increase in capital commitments and outlays in FY 2015 and FY 2016, the value of the Postal Service's net asset holdings decreased substantially during the PAEA era.
The Postal Service's sharp decline in capital investments contributed to the system not achieving Objective 1 (“maximize incentives to reduce costs and increase efficiency”), Objective 3 (“maintain high quality service standards established under section 3691”), and Objective 5 (“assure adequate revenues, including retained earnings, to maintain financial stability”). 39 U.S.C. 3622(b)(1), (3), and (5). The lack of financial stability, insufficient levels of efficiency gains and cost reductions, and inability to adequately encourage the maintenance of service standard quality were interrelated causes and effects of the deficiencies experienced under the existing ratemaking system.
To address these interrelated deficiencies, the ratemaking system must provide the Postal Service the opportunity to generate additional revenue coupled with incentives to increase operational efficiency and maintain high quality service standards. Therefore, the Commission determines that it is necessary to provide additional rate authority to put the Postal Service on the path to long-term financial stability, contingent on the Postal Service meeting particular performance-based thresholds.
After balancing the objectives of the ratemaking system, the Commission determines that the best course of action is not to provide the Postal Service a specific level of retained earnings or a set amount of funding for capital investment but rather to put the Postal Service on a path to long-term financial stability while providing meaningful incentives for the Postal Service to increase operational efficiency and maintain high quality service standards. Given the importance of capital investment to the cycle shown in Figure III-2,
This amount was determined by analyzing net asset holdings, capital outlays, and borrowing authority. The $7.8 billion needed to replace the net asset holdings that declined in the PAEA era represents approximately 16 percent of FY 2017 market dominant revenue. Capital outlays were approximately $1.2 billion less in FY 2016 than in FY 2006, the last fiscal year before PAEA was enacted. The reduction in the annual capital outlays that occurred during the PAEA era represents approximately 2.5 percent of FY 2017 market dominant revenue. The $15 billion in borrowing authority that the Postal Service exhausted during the PAEA era represents approximately 31 percent of FY 2017 market dominant revenue. Taking into account these reference points, the impact of the proposed supplemental rate authority, and the rate increases experienced during the PAEA era, the Commission applies its expert judgment in postal matters to determine that 1 percentage point per annum is the appropriate amount of performance-based rate authority.
All other things being equal, the 1 percentage point of proposed performance-based rate authority would allow the Postal Service to return to pre-PAEA levels of capital outlays in just over 2 years. In approximately 5 years, the proposed performance-based rate authority would produce enough cumulative additional revenue to allow the Postal Service to replace the $7.8 billion decrease in net capital assets that occurred in the PAEA era. It would take approximately 9 years of accumulated additional revenue at a 1-percent rate of increase in prices to also pay off the $15 billion in borrowing authority the Postal Service exhausted during the PAEA.
These calculations assume that all of the future rate increases are applied to FY 2017 volumes. As noted in section III.C.2,
Because of the interdependence of long-term financial stability, operational efficiency, and service quality, the Commission addresses these jointly by linking the availability of this additional rate authority to efficiency and service standard metrics. To facilitate this combined approach, the additional rate authority is structured as an annual amount that is conditioned on the achievement of efficiency gains and the maintenance of service standards. The full amount of the proposed performance-based rate authority will not be available if the Postal Service does not meet or exceed an operational efficiency-based standard and adhere to service standard quality criteria. The magnitude, timing, and conditional design of this mechanism balances the need to ensure the long-term financial stability of the Postal Service (Objective 5), maximize incentives to reduce costs and increase efficiency (Objective 1), and maintain high quality service standards (Objective 3) with the other statutory objectives of the PAEA consistent with the analysis in Order No. 4257.
The Commission has carefully considered how to allocate this additional rate authority in a manner that will address the interrelated systemic deficiencies. The Commission finds that although additional revenue is needed, additional revenue, alone, is insufficient to address the need to also increase operational efficiency and maintain high quality service standards. As discussed in Order No. 4257, all of these are necessary in order for the system to achieve the objectives of 39 U.S.C. 3622(b). Therefore, the Commission proposes to address these interrelated issues through the creation of a Performance Incentive Mechanism (PIM). Generally, a PIM takes the form of either a bonus (
Consistent with the analysis in Order No. 4257, the solution proposed by the Commission is necessary to achieve several of the PAEA's objectives. In fashioning the incentive mechanism, the Commission has specifically focused on Objective 1 (maximizing incentives to reduce costs and increase efficiency), Objective 3 (maintaining high quality service standards), and Objective 5 (assuring adequate revenues, including retained earnings, to maintain financial stability), and the Commission's related analysis in Order No. 4257.
The Commission proposes to make this performance-based rate authority conditional on the Postal Service meeting or exceeding an operational efficiency-based standard and adhering to service standard quality criteria. Using a performance-based approach should encourage the Postal Service to maintain service standard quality and maximize incentives to increase efficiency—thereby addressing areas where the existing ratemaking system was deficient in the 10 years following the enactment of the PAEA. In line with the general premise that improved operational efficiency should help to improve service, the Commission determines that it is appropriate to attach more weight to the operational efficiency aspect of the incentive mechanism. Therefore, the Commission divides this 1 percentage point of performance-based rate authority between an operational efficiency-based standard (0.75 percentage points), and service quality-related criteria (0.25 percentage points).
The Commission has considered the comments and the foregoing analysis in developing proposed subpart E to 39 CFR part 3010, which sets forth the criteria for the availability of performance-based rate authority. The Commission proposes to allocate up to 1 percentage point of rate authority based on the Postal Service meeting or exceeding an operational efficiency-based standard and adhering to service standard quality criteria.
This proposed performance-based rate authority will address three interrelated deficiencies in the existing ratemaking system: Generating sufficient revenue to assure long-term financial stability, maximizing incentives to reduce costs and increase efficiency, and maintaining high quality service standards. This proposed performance-based rate authority is necessary to achieve Objectives 1, 3, and 5. In sections III.D.4 and III.D.5,
The existing market dominant ratemaking system did not maximize incentives to increase operational efficiency in accordance with Objective 1. Order No. 4257 at 222; 39 U.S.C. 3622(b)(1). Consistent with Order No. 4257, the Commission uses total factor productivity (TFP) as its determinative metric for operational efficiency because it is the best available measure of efficiency. Order No. 4257 at 206.
Because TFP contains all of the components needed to determine the efficiency of a multi-product firm and comprehensively accounts for both the inputs and outputs of the Postal Service, TFP reflects the efficiency changes that occur in a given year.
The Postal Service calculates TFP annually and files that figure and the supporting data with the Commission.
TFP generally increased during the PAEA era.
The Postal Service and the Public Representative include detailed evaluations of operational efficiency in their comments.
The Postal Service retained Christensen Associates (Christensen) to provide an evaluation of TFP as a measure of operational efficiency. Postal Service Comments at 57 (citing Postal Service Comments, Appendix D). The TFP methodology as used by the Postal Service was initially developed by Christensen in 1983. Postal Service Comments, Appendix D at 2. In an appendix attached to the Postal Service's comments, Christensen explains the calculation of TFP, compares TFP to other potential ways of measuring efficiency gains, and discusses how TFP results should be assessed.
The Postal Service suggests that the price cap is no longer necessary to incentivize the Postal Service to aggressively focus on increasing operational efficiency and reducing costs.
Moreover, the Postal Service asserts that a lack of financial stability, which it attributes to the price cap, inhibits its ability to ensure the efficiency of its operations by limiting its ability to make capital investments.
The Public Representative suggests that there is a high level of uncertainty associated with measuring the efficiency of the Postal Service. PR Comments at 28. In her declaration in support of the Public Representative, Dr. Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya acknowledges that TFP has been widely used to assess productive efficiency in service industries but comments that she has reservations regarding the utilization of TFP as an exhaustive measure of efficiency. Bzhilyanskaya Decl. at 8. She states that technological progress and other aspects of efficiency (such as scale efficiency, allocative efficiency, and/or dynamic efficiency), may not be fully reflected in the TFP metric but are still important for the Postal Service.
Other commenters discuss operational efficiency more generally. ANM
NNA recommends encouraging specific practices to increase operational efficiency for newspapers such as more efficient container preparation and increased use of Intelligent Mail barcodes. NNA Comments at 3-4.
APWU maintains that the Postal Service has largely realized all of the efficiencies that it can, forcing it to turn to service cuts and forestall capital investments for efficiency improvements and new product development. APWU Comments at 10. It asserts that the TFP gains occurring after 2007 came at the expense of service.
Based on the comments and the Commission's analysis in Order No. 4257, the Commission proposes to use a performance-based mechanism to encourage the Postal Service to maximize the incentives to increase operational efficiency by allocating 0.75 percentage points of performance-based rate authority based on the Postal Service meeting or exceeding an operational efficiency-based standard. The Commission refers to this proposed rate authority as the operational efficiency-based rate authority.
Consistent with its analysis in Order No. 4257, the Commission proposes to measure operational efficiency for purposes of this incentive mechanism using TFP. Conditioning rate authority on increases in TFP incentivizes the Postal Service to maximize output while minimizing costs, leading to improvements in operational efficiency. Using a performance-based approach to incentivize continued TFP growth will help incentivize the Postal Service to overcome the challenges to finding new ways to increase efficiency referenced by the Postal Service and Christensen.
The Commission proposes to evaluate as part of its ACD whether average TFP growth for the most recent 5-year period has met or exceeded 0.606 percent. The standard of 0.606 percent reflects the average growth for TFP over the most recent 5 fiscal years of the PAEA era,
The Commission anticipates that the Postal Service's operational efficiency for the next 5 years will continue to increase at least at the same rate that it has over the most recent 5 years of the PAEA era. The Commission may reevaluate this standard after the expiration of the proposed supplemental rate authority.
Use of a rolling 5-year average for TFP growth should allow enough time for the effects of any long-term investments to appear in the TFP calculation. This also minimizes the possibility raised by both the Postal Service and Christensen of an isolated annual result being unrepresentative. Moreover, this approach is consistent with the Commission's maximization analysis in Order No. 4257, which compared the pace of efficiency gains by comparing the 10 years of experience in the PAEA era and the 10 years immediately preceding implementation of the PAEA.
Existing § 3050.60(e) requires the Postal Service to provide the input data and calculations used to product the annual TFP estimates by March 1 of each year. This rule facilitates the Commission's ability to evaluate proposed methodological changes under existing § 3050.11 and the public's ability to access and understand such changes. Additionally, to increase the transparency of TFP, the Commission intends to use existing § 3050.2, which requires documentation of periodic reports (
Although the Public Representative and the Postal Service noted the limitations of TFP as a measurement of operational efficiency, no commenter proposed an alternative measurement. Christensen evaluated other measurements proposed by the Commission in Order No. 3673, such as real unit operating costs, simpler productivity measures, and total workhours. Postal Service Comments, Appendix D at 4. Christensen concluded that these measures do not fully capture the complexity of Postal Service efficiency in comparison to TFP.
The Postal Service comments that the price cap affects its ability to raise capital to make necessary improvements. Postal Service Comments at 130. However, removing the price cap entirely might further weaken the Postal Service's existing incentives to maximize operational efficiency. Conditioning the availability of the operational efficiency-based rate authority on measurable TFP growth should ensure that improving the Postal Service's financial stability does not occur at the expense of continuing to increase operational efficiency. Therefore, the proposed solution is necessary to achieve efficiency gains sufficient to contribute to the financial stability of the Postal Service.
The Commission has considered the comments and the foregoing analysis in developing proposed subpart E to 39 CFR part 3010, which sets forth the criteria for the availability of performance-based rate authority. Proposed § 3010.180 describes the applicability of both the operational efficiency-based rate authority and the service quality-based rate authority. Proposed § 3010.181 outlines the procedure for allocation of the operational efficiency-based rate authority.
The Commission proposes to allocate 0.75 percentage points of rate authority based on the Postal Service meeting or exceeding an operational efficiency-based standard. This proposed operational efficiency-based rate authority will address that the existing ratemaking system did not maximize the incentives to increase efficiency, as required by Objective 1. Therefore, this proposed operational efficiency-based rate authority is necessary to achieve Objective 1. The proposal balances the need to provide the Postal Service with the opportunity to generate additional revenue necessary to attain long-term financial stability and the danger that increased revenue might weaken the Postal Service's incentives to operate more efficiently.
The existing ratemaking system limits rate increases, and by extension, revenue (assuming volume for market dominant products does not significantly increase). Therefore, as discussed above, cost reduction and operational efficiency improvements are critical to putting the Postal Service on the path to financial stability and retained earnings. However, without adequate incentives requiring service to be maintained, reducing service may be a means of reducing costs. Therefore, the PAEA intended that the system should be designed to encourage the maintenance of high quality service standards (established under 39 U.S.C. 3691) and to hold the Postal Service accountable for consistently achieving those standards, as required by Objective 3. Order No. 4257 at 250 (citing 39 U.S.C. 3622(b)(3)).
The PAEA required the Postal Service to establish, in consultation with the Commission, an initial set of service standards for market dominant products to take effect within 1 year of the PAEA's enactment.
The initial service standards were reduced during the PAEA era through two major sets of revisions made by the Postal Service.
The Postal Service asserted that both sets of revisions to the service standards were undertaken to improve operational efficiency. Network Rationalization Revisions at 31,191; Load Leveling Revisions at 12,390. Both sets of revisions increased the expected days-to-delivery for the affected mailpieces. Order No. 4257 at 268-69.
The Commission issued an advisory opinion applicable to Network Rationalization concluding that it was possible for the Postal Service to undertake significant network rationalization and to realize substantial cost savings while preserving most of the initial service levels.
The decline of service standards during the PAEA era demonstrates that the existing ratemaking system did not effectively encourage the Postal Service to maintain service quality.
Many commenters express dissatisfaction with their current service.
The Postal Service and the unions suggest that eliminating the price cap will allow the Postal Service to collect more revenue and thereby improve service.
The Postal Service contends that having sufficient resources to ensure financial integrity is a prerequisite to maintaining high quality service. Postal Service Comments at 44-45. The Postal Service asserts that the lack of financial liquidity has caused it to defer capital investments needed to sustain service.
Similarly, NALC favors eliminating the price cap based on its contention that adequate revenues are necessary to fulfill the Postal Service's fundamental mission to provide prompt and reliable postal services nationwide. NALC Comments at 1.
APWU asserts that the price cap pressures the Postal Service to reduce costs at the expense of service. APWU Comments at 26. Stating that “Congress did not anticipate a decrease in mail volume, an increase i[n] delivery points, a recession, and [a] change in [the] mail mix,” APWU recommends that the Commission move away from the price cap system to a more flexible system that will allow the Postal Service to better “respond to varied and unexpected changes.”
Other commenters suggest improving service under a modified price cap. Although the Public Representative asserts that the Commission could modify the price cap to include a Q-Factor to link service and rates directly, he cautions that imposing a Q-Factor would be premature, especially if the Commission significantly changes other aspects of the system that may positively affect service. PR Comments at 59. Therefore, he recommends that in the short-term, the Commission continue to monitor service performance.
MH and NAAD suggest that the Commission consider potential service consequences when evaluating proposed rate changes. MH and NAAD Comments at 11. They also advise that the Commission ensure that cost-control (or revenue-limitation) does not lead to unavoidable Postal Service management decisions that decrease achievement of service objectives.
UPS, which proposes to retain the price cap, suggests that any proposals to relax the price cap should be counterbalanced by raising and enforcing service standards. UPS Comments at 6.
Several commenters contend that eliminating or relaxing the price cap may negatively affect service because the price cap has incentivized the Postal Service to make needed service-related changes in order to improve operational efficiency. For instance, Minnesota Power asserts that “[t]he CPI cap is a necessary tool to encourage the Postal Service to improve service and further reduce costs.” Minnesota Power Comments at 2. AF&PA agrees that “[r]emoving or raising the CPI price cap would remove these important incentives, resulting in a less efficient Postal Service with lower quality service . . . .” AF&PA Comments at 6. MMA
Multiple commenters focus on improving service performance. Several commenters discuss the importance of consistent and reliable on-time service performance.
Based on the comments and the Commission's analysis in Order No. 4257, the Commission proposes to use a performance-based mechanism to encourage the Postal Service to maintain service standard quality by allocating 0.25 percentage points of the performance-based rate authority based on the Postal Service adhering to service standard quality criteria. The Commission refers to this proposed rate authority as the service quality-based rate authority.
The Commission proposes that the service quality-based rate authority be allocated for a class of mail if all of the Postal Service's service standards (including applicable business rules) for that class for the applicable year met or exceeded the service standards in place during the prior fiscal year on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis. To facilitate this review, the Commission proposes to require the Postal Service to provide in its Annual Compliance Report (ACR) a description of and reason for any changes to service standards, or to certify that no changes to service standards have been made, since the last ACR. Under the proposed rules, the Commission would issue a preliminary determination, specific to each class of mail, at the time of the ACD.
Under the proposed rules, any interested person will have 30 days to challenge this preliminary determination. The subject matter of the challenge is limited to changes in the service standards, including the business rules, that occur on a national or substantially nationwide basis. If no timely challenge is filed, the preliminary determination shall become final. If a timely challenge is filed, then the Commission will rule on any challenge within 60 days after the filing of the challenge. Any service quality-based rate authority allocated under this process would be available to the Postal Service for the upcoming calendar year. This proposed procedure will give the Postal Service and ratepayers adequate advance notice of whether, for each class, the 0.25 percentage points of service quality-based rate authority will be available to the Postal Service to use for the next calendar year.
This service quality-based rate authority is linked to the service standards and the business rules rather than actual service performance such as on-time delivery performance. Service performance issues are most appropriately dealt with in the ACD. Order No. 4257 at 273.
Ultimately, the Commission strives to balance competing policy concerns in a manner that will encourage the Postal Service “[t]o maintain high quality service standards established under section 3691,” as required by Objective 3. 39 U.S.C. 3622(b)(3). On the one hand, the Commission has considered comments contending that the operation of the price cap over the past 10 years has placed extreme financial pressure on the Postal Service to cut costs, resulting in the failure to maintain service standards. The Commission also has given weight to other comments cautioning that relaxing or eliminating the price cap may weaken incentives to provide efficient and reliable service. Moreover, the Commission has considered the commenters' concerns regarding the Postal Service's use of its revenues and resources with respect to service. Therefore, the Commission proposes rules to strike a balance between relieving the financial pressure to allow the Postal Service the opportunity to improve service and incentivizing the Postal Service to maintain high quality service standards for its market dominant products.
The Commission agrees with the comments proposing to continue the existing approach to address service performance issues. The Commission also agrees with the Public Representative that introduction of a Q-Factor is premature given the other changes being proposed that may affect service. Overall, the Commission encourages the Postal Service to continue its efforts to improve service performance. The Commission recommends that the Postal Service consider the operational and monitoring improvements suggested by the commenters in this proceeding and continue its work with stakeholders on these issues outside of this proceeding.
The Commission has considered the comments and the foregoing analysis in developing proposed subpart E to 39 CFR part 3010, which sets forth the criteria for the availability of performance-based rate authority. Proposed § 3010.180 describes the applicability of both the operational efficiency-based rate authority and the service quality-based rate authority. Proposed § 3010.182 outlines the procedure for allocation of the service quality-based rate authority. Changes are proposed to existing § 3055.2 to require that the Postal Service provide in its ACR a description of and reason for any changes to service standards, or to certify that no changes to service standards have been made, since the last ACR.
The Commission proposes to allocate 0.25 percentage points of rate authority based on the Postal Service's adhering to service standard quality criteria. This will encourage the Postal Service to maintain high quality service standards, as necessary to achieve Objective 3. This approach balances the need to assure Postal Service's long-term financial stability and encourage the Postal Service to maintain high quality service standards.
As explained in Order No. 4257, non-compensatory products threaten the financial integrity of the Postal Service because the revenue from these products does not cover their attributable cost. Order No. 4257 at 234-35. During the PAEA era, multiple market dominant products did not recover their attributable costs. Moreover, the Periodicals class has not covered its attributable costs since the enactment of the PAEA. In this section, the Commission discusses these issues and proposes a solution to put the Postal Service on the path to having fully compensatory products and classes.
Non-compensatory products are those products for which attributable costs exceed revenue. In the FY 2016 ACD, the Commission identified 10 non-compensatory products: (1) In-County Periodicals; (2) Outside County Periodicals; (3) USPS Marketing Mail Flats (formerly called Standard Mail Flats); (4) USPS Marketing Mail Parcels (formerly called Standard Mail Parcels); (5) Stamp Fulfillment Services; (6) Money Orders; (7) Collect on Delivery; (8) Stamped Envelopes; (9) Inbound Letter Post;
With the exception of the two Periodicals products—In-County Periodicals and Outside County Periodicals, which will be addressed subsequently in this Order—all of these non-compensatory products are included within classes of mail for which the overall class revenue exceeds overall class attributable cost. Products such as USPS Marketing Mail Flats, Stamp Fulfillment Services,
In Order No. 4257, the Commission found that non-compensatory products are not reasonably or efficiently priced and may threaten the financial integrity of the Postal Service because revenue from these products fails to cover costs.
The primary commenter with regard to non-compensatory products was the Postal Service. The Postal Service comments that the price cap inhibits its ability to make rational and efficient pricing decisions. Postal Service Comments at 131. The Postal Service uses the USPS Marketing Mail Flats product as an example. Cost coverage for this product has declined since passage of the PAEA.
The Commission proposes to define “non-compensatory products” as products for which attributable cost exceeds revenue, as determined by the most recent ACD. As a starting point, the Commission proposes to prohibit the reduction of rates for non-compensatory products.
Also, for non-compensatory products in classes for which attributable costs for the entire class do not exceed revenue for the class, the Commission proposes to require minimum product-level price increases. Under the
The Commission recognizes that the proposed solution places some limitation on the Postal Service's pricing flexibility. Consistent with the analysis in Order No. 4257, the solution proposed by the Commission allows for continued achievement of Objective 4 (allowing the Postal Service pricing flexibility) while making changes necessary to achieve Objective 1 (maximize incentives to increase pricing efficiency) and Objective 8 (establishing and maintaining reasonable rates).
The Commission's proposal does not mandate immediate full cost coverage for non-compensatory products, but it does seek to narrow the coverage gap and move non-compensatory products toward full cost coverage over time. Given the substantial increase needed for some non-compensatory products to cover their attributable costs, a 2-percentage point rate increase represents an appropriate mechanism for improving cost coverage while simultaneously maintaining stability and predictability in rates, as required by Objective 2.
The purpose of the pricing requirements for non-compensatory products is for the cost coverage of these products to move toward, and eventually above, 100 percent. The Commission performed a scenario-based analysis to determine the appropriate level of additional price increases for non-compensatory products. In Table III-3, the most recent CPI-U projections were combined with unit attributable cost growth rates from the most recent 8 years to estimate changes in cost coverage assuming that prices are increased by 1 percent, 2 percent, or 3 percent above the average rate increase for the class.
In the scenarios detailed in Table III-3, USPS Marketing Mail Flats would experience 5-year cumulative price increases of between 27.93 and 40.58 percent.
In Table III-4, unit attributable costs are assumed to increase at 1.0 percent per year, or 1.6 percent below the historical average. If the Postal Service increases prices at 2 percent above the class average and reduces the growth in unit attributable cost, the cost coverage exceeds 100 percent after 5 years.
The Commission determines that requiring the Postal Service to increase the rate for any non-compensatory product by a minimum of 2 percentage points above the percentage increase for the class is appropriate because it balances the need for mailers to pay reasonable rates with the need for the Postal Service to achieve cost reductions.
Proposed subpart F is added to 39 CFR part 3010 to address the issue of non-compensatory products and classes. Proposed § 3010.200 defines non-compensatory products as those for which the attributable costs for the product exceeded the product's revenue as determined by the most recent ACD.
Proposed § 3010.201 sets forth the rate setting criteria for non-compensatory products in classes for which overall class revenue exceeds overall class attributable cost.
Existing § 3010.20(e) is replaced by proposed §§ 3010.127(b) and 3010.129(g), which prohibit the reduction of rates of non-compensatory products.
The proposed rate setting criteria applicable to non-compensatory products is necessary to achieve Objectives 1 and 8. Products that do not generate revenues that cover their attributable costs contribute to the system's inability to achieve reasonable and efficient prices. Gradual above-average increases to the prices of non-compensatory products will bring those products to full cost coverage over time and thereby achieve reasonable and efficient rates as envisioned by the PAEA. This proposed approach will also allow for continued pricing flexibility and consistent with the Commission's evaluation of the ratemaking system in Order No. 4257.
The Periodicals class has not covered its attributable costs since the enactment of the PAEA. FY 2016 ACD at 42. This is because the Periodicals class consists of only two products—In-County Periodicals and Outside County Periodicals—and each of those products is non-compensatory.
Non-compensatory classes create unique problems in a ratemaking system that is limited to inflation-based increases applied at the class level. 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3)(A). Unless the Postal Service is able to constrain class costs to below the level of inflation, the coverage for the class cannot improve.
If a non-compensatory product forms part of a class that is compensatory on the whole, then the rates for the non-compensatory product can be increased by a greater percentage than the compensatory products in that class while keeping the overall class increase within the price cap.
But if, as with Periodicals, the entire class is non-compensatory, there is no opportunity to rebalance rates among products, because increasing the rates for one product generally requires offsetting decreases to the rates for other products, and there are no products with positive cost coverage against which such offsets can be made.
Several commenters proposed solutions for non-compensatory mail classes.
The Postal Service asserts that the cost-coverage problems with regard to the Periodicals class are the result of a
The Public Representative recommends that the Commission “[a]djust the price cap for Periodicals to give the Postal Service the opportunity to attempt improvements in cost coverages.” PR Comments at 33. The Public Representative states that raising the price cap for Periodicals would provide the Postal Service “the pricing flexibility that Objective 4 [of the PAEA] was intended to achieve,” without relieving the Postal Service of its “obligation . . . to reduce costs or to increase efficiency.”
NNA states that in lieu of “punitive” price increases for the non-compensatory Periodicals class, both the In-County and Outside County Periodicals mail products could be made more efficient. NNA Comments at 24-25. NNA proposes specific revision to the worksharing price structure.
PSA maintains that the Periodicals class is being subsidized by other mail classes, resulting in rates which are not just and reasonable. PSA Comments at 4-5.
SIIA maintains that “any efforts to enhance pricing flexibility should take into consideration the impact this has on mailers, particularly if the flexibility is not strategically applied to accommodate the goals of rate predictability and long-term, sustainable cost-coverage objectives . . . .” SIIA Comments at 8.
ANM
Because improved cost coverage for products within non-compensatory classes cannot be attained by rebalancing rates among products within such classes, the Commission proposes a solution that expands pricing authority for non-compensatory classes in order to allow for additional product-level rate increases within such classes. If the attributable cost for an entire class exceeds revenue for that class, the Commission proposes to provide 2 percentage points of additional rate authority for the class. Under the Commission's proposal, as part of the first generally applicable rate adjustment in a calendar year, the Postal Service, when seeking to raise rates for a non-compensatory class, must use all available rate authority for non-compensatory classes. This includes all CPI (proposed subpart C of 39 CFR part 3010), supplemental (proposed subpart D of 39 CFR part 3010), performance-based (proposed subpart E of 39 CFR part 3010), and banked rate authority up to the 2-percent maximum (proposed subpart G of 39 CFR part 3010),
If there are any products within a non-compensatory class for which product-level revenue exceeds the product-level attributable cost, then prices for such products may only be increased up to the amount of the class average. Moreover, the Commission proposes to prohibit the reduction of rates for non-compensatory products.
Although the existing ratemaking system limits the Postal Service's pricing flexibility and ability to make efficient pricing decisions with respect to non-compensatory classes, removal of the price cap is not an appropriate solution. To create pricing predictability and stability, the ratemaking system must contain a mechanism that limits the magnitude of price adjustments.
The Commission's proposed solution does not mandate immediate full cost coverage for non-compensatory classes, but it does seek to narrow the coverage gap and move prices towards full cost coverage over time. Further, given the substantial increase needed for the Periodicals class to cover its attributable cost, the proposed 2-percentage point increase represents an appropriate mechanism for improving cost coverage while simultaneously maintaining stability and predictability in rates, as required by Objective 2.
The Commission determines that a requirement that the Postal Service increase the rates for any non-compensatory class by an additional 2 percentage points is appropriate because it balances the need for mailers to pay a more reasonable rate with the need for the Postal Service to achieve cost reductions and improvements in operational efficiency.
Proposed subpart F is added to 39 CFR part 3010 to address the issue of non-compensatory products and classes. Proposed § 3010.200 defines non-compensatory classes of mail as those for which attributable costs for the class
Proposed § 3010.202(a) provides for 2 percentage points of additional rate authority for a non-compensatory class. Proposed § 3010.202(b) sets forth the rate setting criteria that applies if the Postal Service chooses to adjust rates for a non-compensatory class.
Proposed § 3010.202(c) describes the requirements applicable to the availability, calculation, and use of the 2 percentage points of additional rate authority for a non-compensatory class.
Existing § 3010.20(e) is replaced by proposed §§ 3010.127(b) and 3010.129(g), which prohibit the reduction of rates of non-compensatory products.
The proposed increase in class-level rate authority applicable to non-compensatory classes is necessary to achieve Objectives 1 and 8. Non-compensatory classes are dominated by non-compensatory products. For these classes to generate revenues that cover their attributable costs, the products within them must have prices that are reasonable and efficient prices. However, non-compensatory classes could not be addressed with the same solution as for non-compensatory products in compensatory classes because the price cap is applied at the class level. An increase in the class-level rate authority for non-compensatory classes will gradually move the prices of non-compensatory products within non-compensatory classes to the cost coverage over time, thereby achieving reasonable and efficient rates as envisioned by the PAEA. This proposed approach is necessary to achieve Objectives 1 and 8 and is consistent with the Commission's analysis of the other objectives in Order No. 4257.
The PAEA aimed to allow the Postal Service pricing flexibility while increasing pricing efficiency.
Workshare discounts are rate discounts that the Postal Service provides to mailers for presorting, prebarcoding, handling, or transporting mail. 39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(1). Workshare discounts reduce prices for mailpieces that are prepared or inducted in a manner that allows the Postal Service to avoid certain activities that it would have otherwise performed. The Commission must “ensure that [workshare] discounts do not exceed the cost that the Postal Service avoids as a result of workshare activity” (avoided cost) unless certain exceptions are met. 39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(2).
The Commission reviews workshare discounts for compliance with section 3622(e) both before and after their implementation. The Commission's pre-implementation review of proposed workshare discounts occurs during rate adjustment proceedings. Existing § 3010.12(b)(6) requires the Postal Service to justify that a statutory exception applies to any proposed workshare discount that exceeds its avoided costs. Under this existing rule, the Postal Service must also identify and explain discounts that are set substantially below avoided costs, and explain any relationship between discounts that are above and those that are below avoided costs.
The Commission completes its post-implementation review for compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3622(e) in the ACD at the end of each fiscal year. Existing § 3050.20(c) requires the Postal Service's ACR to address discounts greater than avoided costs. Existing § 3050.24 requires the Postal Service to file documentation that supports its avoided cost estimates.
In both pre- and post-implementation reviews, the Commission ascertains compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3622(e) by evaluating the workshare discount's passthrough.
To adhere to ECP, workshare discounts should be set equal, on a per-unit basis, to the costs avoided by the Postal Service when the mailer performs the workshare activity. Order No. 4257 at 131. Using ECP to set workshare discounts would produce passthroughs equal to 100 percent.
Workshare discounts set substantially above or substantially below avoided costs are problematic because they send inefficient price signals to mailers and therefore reduce productive efficiency in the postal sector.
Several commenters recommend that the Commission require all workshare discount passthroughs to be set at or near 100 percent. Other commenters recommend retaining the existing requirements or suggest changes to accepted analytical principles.
Several commenters recommend that the Commission require the Postal Service to set workshare discounts at or near 100 percent of avoided costs.
Pitney Bowes comments extensively on this issue and favors the Commission establishing a soft floor for workshare discounts to provide additional incentives for the Postal Service to reduce costs and increase efficiency. Pitney Bowes Comments at 3. Specifically, Pitney Bowes recommends that the soft floor require the Postal Service to set workshare discounts at, or as close as possible to, avoided costs subject to clearly defined and limited exceptions.
Other commenters also support the Commission tightening requirements for the Postal Service to set workshare discounts at or near 100 percent of avoided costs. PSA also favors establishing a soft floor. PSA Comments at 5. MMA
Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Jason Chaffetz and Chairman of the Government Operations Subcommittee Mark Meadows comment that both the Postal Service and the mailing industry would benefit by having workshare discounts set equal to avoided costs. Chairman Chaffetz and Chairman Meadows Comments at 2. They assert that setting discounts below avoided costs “discourages the mailing industry from performing work more cost-effectively than the Postal Service.”
Other commenters recommend against changing workshare discount requirements in this proceeding. The Postal Service asserts that there is inadequate economic justification to base workshare discounts solely on ECP cost avoidances. Postal Service Comments at 232. It contends that “[w]hile ECP may advance the achievement of Objective 1 in some respects (as well as take into account Factor 5),” requiring all workshare discounts to fully conform to ECP would not appropriately balance the objectives because it would “largely vitiate the Postal Service's pricing flexibility.”
Some commenters suggest changes to accepted analytical principles relating to workshare discounts. MMA
The Commission proposes rules to phase out two practices that harm pricing efficiency: Workshare discounts set substantially below avoided costs and workshare discounts set substantially above avoided costs.
Therefore, the proposed rules establish bands—ranges with upper and lower limits—for workshare discount passthroughs. A passthrough must fall within the applicable band to be compliant. All passthroughs that fall outside of the applicable band would be noncompliant, subject to a 3-year grace period commencing from the effective date of these rules or when a new workshare discount is established.
The proposed rules promote ECP and help the ratemaking system to maximize incentives to increase efficiency by incentivizing the Postal Service to set workshare discount passthroughs closer to 100 percent in accordance with Objective 1.
The Commission proposes two bands—one for Periodicals and one for
The proposed ranges for each band are supported by an empirical analysis. Comparing the passthroughs in the first proceeding (Docket No. R2008-1) and in the most recent proceeding (Docket No. R2017-1) to adjust rates for all classes in the PAEA era demonstrates how passthroughs have become increasingly inconsistent with ECP over the PAEA era, especially for Periodicals.
With respect to passthroughs for Periodicals, in Docket No. R2008-1, 14 of 27 conformed to the proposed Periodicals band, ranging from 75 to 125 percent. Eleven of 27 Periodicals passthroughs set in that proceeding fell below the proposed band, and 2 of 27 were above the proposed band. By contrast, in Docket No. R2017-1, most passthroughs for Periodicals did not conform to the proposed band. In Docket No. R2017-1, 7 of 28 of the passthroughs for Periodicals conformed to the proposed band. Fourteen of 28 of the Periodicals passthroughs set in Docket No. R2017-1 fell below the proposed band and 7 of 28 were above the proposed band.
With respect to passthroughs for all other classes with workshare discounts—First-Class Mail, USPS Marketing Mail, and Package Services—in Docket No. R2008-1, 46 of 69 passthroughs conformed to the proposed band, ranging from 85 to 115 percent. The passthroughs outside of the proposed band were nearly evenly distributed. Eleven of 69 of the passthroughs fell below the proposed band, and 12 of 69 were above the proposed band. By contrast, in Docket No. R2017-1, most passthroughs for First-Class Mail, USPS Marketing Mail, and Package Services did not conform to the proposed band. In Docket No. R2017-1, 20 of 75 these passthroughs conformed to the proposed band. Thirty-seven of 75 of the passthroughs fell below the proposed band, and 18 of 75 were above the proposed band.
Comparing the passthroughs set in these two proceedings also demonstrates that more passthroughs have moved below 100 percent. The median passthrough for Periodicals declined from 89 percent in Docket No. R2008-1 to 75 percent in Docket No. R2017-1. The median passthrough for all other classes declined from 97 percent in Docket No. R2008-1 to 85 percent in Docket No. R2017-1.
Because most workshare discount passthroughs fell within the proposed bands during the first rate proceeding under the PAEA, phasing out passthroughs that fall outside the range for each proposed band over a limited period of time appears to be a reasonable and achievable method to promote ECP. Moreover, based on an analysis of the percentage change in cost avoidances between ACDs, the Commission found that a majority of these changes fell within the proposed bands. This confirms that the ranges for the proposed bands are sufficient to encompass most fluctuations in cost avoidance. Therefore, the Commission proposes the bands with ranges of plus or minus 25 percent for Periodicals and plus or minus 15 percent for all other classes, subject to a 3-year grace period.
The 3-year grace period is consistent with the PAEA's direction to phase out excessive workshare discounts over a limited period of time.
For all existing passthroughs, the Postal Service will have 3 years after the proposed rules go into effect to adjust the passthroughs to comply with the applicable band. If the Postal Service establishes a new workshare discount after the proposed rules become effective that does not comply with the applicable band, the Postal Service will have 3 years after establishing the new workshare discount to adjust the passthrough to comply with the applicable band.
For both current and new workshare discounts, the proposed rules require the Postal Service to submit a plan to bring passthroughs into compliance with the applicable band in each rate adjustment filed during the grace period. After the grace period expires, any workshare discounts outside the applicable band would be noncompliant.
Based on a determination that the existing ratemaking system did not achieve pricing efficiency, the Commission declines to retain the existing rules relating to workshare discounts.
The Commission also declines to require that all passthroughs be set at exactly 100 percent. Although such a rule would be consistent with ECP, the proposed rules incorporate the concerns of commenters regarding fluctuations in cost avoidance and continue to allow the Postal Service some pricing flexibility with regard to workshare discounts by establishing bands of compliant passthroughs. Establishing bands (plus or minus 25 percent for Periodicals and plus or minus 15 percent for all other classes) incorporates the suggestions of commenters to incentivize the Postal Service to set workshare discounts closer to 100 percent of avoided costs. The lower limits applicable to the proposed bands (75 percent for Periodicals and 85 percent for all other classes) incorporate the suggestions that passthroughs adhere to a “soft floor.”
The suggested changes to accepted analytical principles related to workshare discounts fall outside of the scope of this proceeding. This proceeding focuses on proposing rules as necessary for the ratemaking system to achieve the objectives in 39 U.S.C. 3622(b). The standard for changing accepted analytical principles differs. Accepted analytical principles may be changed to improve the quality, accuracy, or completeness of the Postal Service data or analysis underlying the ACR. 39 CFR 3050.11(a). Any interested person may petition the Commission to initiate a proceeding to consider changing accepted analytical principles.
The Commission declines to adopt GCA's suggestion to use a 3-year moving average of cost avoidances to smooth out cost fluctuations. This approach would place too much emphasis on avoiding rate shock while failing to produce workshare discounts that are calculated based on current prices and costs. Instead, the Commission's approach proposed in this proceeding—bands for passthrough compliance after a 3-year grace period—will encompass most cost avoidance fluctuations and
The Commission has considered the comments and the foregoing analysis in developing proposed subpart I to 39 CFR part 3010. Proposed § 3010.260 explains the applicability of proposed subpart I. Proposed § 3010.261 sets forth the upper and lower limits for passthroughs applicable to each class. Proposed § 3010.262 provides for a 3-year grace period to bring noncompliant passthroughs (existing and new) into compliance with the applicable band. Proposed § 3010.262 also requires the Postal Service to submit a plan to bring the noncompliant passthroughs into compliance with the applicable band. To conform with this proposed change, the Commission proposes to delete existing § 3010.12(b)(6). To reflect the deletion of § 3010.12(b)(6), the Commission also proposes a conforming deletion in § 3050.20(c).
Proposed § 3010.123(f) retains existing § 3010.12(b)(5)'s requirements for the schedule of workshare discounts. Proposed § 3010.123(g) retains existing § 3010.12(c)'s requirements pertaining to the contents of a Postal Service's request to review a notice of rate adjustment that establishes a new workshare discount.
The proposal to require that workshare discount passthroughs conform to the applicable bands, subject to a 3-year grace period, is necessary to achieve Objective 1. Workshare discounts set substantially above or below avoided costs send inefficient pricing signals and are inconsistent with ECP. Such discounts contribute to the system having not achieved efficient prices, which may have contributed to the Postal Service's poor financial health by disrupting incentives for the Postal Service to right size its network and for mailers to enter volume that best conforms to the network. Proposed subpart I requires the Postal Service to gradually phase out these problematic practices and set more efficient prices. This proposed approach will also allow for continued pricing flexibility for the Postal Service.
The Commission proposes two procedural changes to improve the ratemaking process relating to planned rate adjustments of general applicability. These proposed changes are within the scope of the Commission's general authority to revise its regulations. 39 U.S.C. 3622(a); 39 U.S.C. 503. These proposed procedural changes are consistent with the Commission's review in Order No. 4257 and take into account the comments received in this proceeding. Therefore, the Commission sees no detriment to proposing these procedural changes in this docket. First, the Commission proposes to improve the requirements relating to the schedule for regular and predictable rate adjustments. Second, the Commission proposes to lengthen the notice period for rate adjustments and make conforming adjustments to the timing of comments and the Commission's decision.
In Order No. 4257, the Commission determined that the ratemaking system must have a mechanism that limits the magnitude of price adjustments and is sufficiently transparent to allow for mailers to understand how the limitation mechanism works. Order No. 4257 at 103. Existing § 3010.9(e) requires the schedule for regular and predictable rate adjustments to be updated “[w]henever the Postal Service deems it appropriate.” 39 CFR 3010.9(e). Over the past 10 years, the Postal Service has, for the most part, filed its notices of rate adjustments on predictable and consistent schedules. Order No. 4257 at 61, 143. Where it has deviated from those schedules, such deviations have been based on external factors from which a mailer or postal customer could reasonably forecast the potential effect on the timing of price adjustments.
In conjunction with its recommendation to eliminate the price cap, the Postal Service suggests that the Commission require the Postal Service to give mailers guidance regarding the timing and magnitude of rate increases at the class and product level, before filing a specific rate docket. Postal Service Comments at 14, 202. Under its proposed forward guidance regime, the Postal Service proposes to provide information in accordance with the following schedule:
Other commenters did not put forth specific proposals concerning the schedule of rate adjustments. Generally, commenters discuss the business need to accurately budget for postage rate increases. For instance, Publishers Clearing House notes that it attempts to forecast postage increases to establish 3-year budget outlooks.
The Commission proposes to enhance the schedule of regular and predictable rate adjustments. The Commission proposes to require the Postal Service to update the schedule at least once a year (at a minimum, at the time of filing the ACR). The Commission proposes to require that the schedule contain plans to adjust rates that may occur over the next 3 years, at a minimum. Specifically, the Postal Service must include the estimated filing and implementation dates (month and year) and an explanation that will allow mailers to predict with reasonable accuracy, by class, the amounts of planned rate adjustments. The Postal Service will retain the flexibility to provide a new schedule at any time. It may also deviate from the anticipated rate changes if it explains the reason for the deviation in its request to the Commission to review its notice of rate adjustment.
Requiring regular annual updates of the planned timing and magnitude of rate adjustments over a 3-year period would improve the mailing community's ability to plan budgets. The proposed changes to the schedule are also consistent with the Postal Service's current business practices to keep key stakeholders informed of planned rate changes outside of the ratemaking process. For instance, the Postal Service issued a press release in November 2009 announcing that it would not adjust market dominant rates in Calendar Year 2010.
The Commission proposes to improve the transparency of planned rate adjustments while retaining a mechanism that limits the magnitude of price adjustments. The Commission considers the Postal Service's representations about its capability to predict rate adjustments and the needs of mailers to have helpful information to plan their budgets in proposing this rule.
The Commission proposes to replace existing § 3010.9 with proposed § 3010.102.
Pursuant to its general authority to revise its regulations under 39 U.S.C. 3622(a) and 503, the Commission proposes changes to the schedule to improve transparency.
In Order No. 4257, the Commission determined that rate adjustment proceedings were able to be consistently adjudicated within 90 days. Order No. 4257 at 72. In each of the eight proceedings requesting to adjust rates for all classes during the PAEA era, the Postal Service filed its initial request to the Commission to review its notice of rate adjustment at least 90 days before the planned implementation date of each rate adjustment.
On average, the Commission sought additional information at least once in small-scale rate proceedings, resulting in an average duration of 37 days for Commission review of small-scale rate proceedings in the PAEA era.
In conjunction with its recommendation to eliminate the price cap, the Postal Service committed to continuing to provide at least 90 days' advance notice of planned rate adjustments. Postal Service Comments at 202, 206 n.398. Specifically, the Postal Service proposes establishing a requirement to provide notice of specific rate and structural changes 3 months prior to the planned implementation date.
Other commenters did not put forth specific proposals concerning the notice requirement. While urging the Commission to retain a price cap system, MMA
To facilitate the administration of rate adjustment proceedings, the Commission proposes to extend the notice period from 45 days to 90 days prior to the planned implementation of rates. This proposed change codifies the existing practice. Requiring 90-days' advance notice of the specific rate and structural changes should facilitate mailers' ability to generate budgets. It also allows adequate time for the proceeding to be adjudicated, including potential changes, while still giving mailers time to implement the planned rates on the planned date.
Commensurate with extending the notice period, the Commission also proposes to extend the deadline to comment on an initial request from 20 days to 30 days. Allowing commenters 10 additional days to formulate comments will facilitate meaningful and intelligent participation by interested persons. The Commission also extends the deadline to comment on an amended request from 7 days to 10 days. These proposed durations are consistent with extensions to the comment period made in prior proceedings.
Commensurate with extending the notice period and the comment period, the Commission also proposes to lengthen the time for the Commission to render its decision from 14 days to 21 days after the conclusion of the comment period (for both an initial and an amended request). These proposed changes will better allow the Commission to evaluate each rate proceeding.
The Commission also proposes to enumerate potential actions that it may take if the Commission determines that the Postal Service's request fails to
Cumulatively, these changes remain consistent with the streamlined duration of rate review in the PAEA era. The changes are also consistent with the Commission's review of the ratemaking process in Order No. 4257.
Rate adjustments that only propose to establish or change rates for market dominant NSAs (denoted as Type 2 Rate Adjustments under existing § 3010.7) or only to adjust rates due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances (denoted as Type 3 Rate Adjustments under existing § 3010.8) remain unaffected by these proposed procedural changes.
The Commission proposes to improve the transparency of planned rate adjustments while retaining a mechanism that limits the magnitude of price adjustments. The Commission has considered the Postal Service's commitments to providing at least 90 days' advance notice of planned rate adjustments and the needs of mailers to have helpful information to plan their budgets in proposing this rule.
The Commission proposes to replace existing §§ 3010.10 and 3010.11, which contain the existing timing requirements for notice, comments, and Commission decision, with the following proposed rules.
Proposed § 3010.121 extends the periods for the Postal Service to provide public notice and submit a request to the Commission to review its notice of rate adjustment from 45 days to 90 days. Proposed § 3010.122(b) contains a conforming change concerning the representation of compliance with the public notice requirement.
Proposed § 3010.124(f) contains the revised timeframe allowing 30 days for public comment on the initial request. Proposed § 3010.126(b) contains the revised timeframe stating that the Commission decision will be issued within 21 days after the conclusion of the comment period.
Proposed § 3010.126(a) states that if the Commission determines that the Postal Service's request fails to contain the required information, the Commission may: Provide an opportunity for the Postal Service to take corrective action, toll or otherwise modify the procedural schedule until the Postal Service takes corrective action, dismiss the request without prejudice, or take other action as deemed appropriate by the Commission.
Proposed § 3010.126(f) contains the revised timeframe allowing 10 days for public comment on an amended request. Proposed § 3010.126(g) contains the revised timeframe stating that the Commission decision will be issued within 21 days after the conclusion of the comment period. Proposed § 3010.126(h) provides that no amended rate may take effect until 45 days after the Postal Service's amended request.
Pursuant to its general authority to revise its regulations under 39 U.S.C. 3622(a) and 503, the Commission proposes changes to the notice requirement (and the conforming changes to other procedural requirements) to facilitate the administration of rate proceedings.
The rules in 39 CFR part 3010, subparts A, B, C, and E. (existing §§ 3010.1
The new rules, as proposed, perform two functions: they implement the findings of this docket, and they utilize a simpler format that should be more readable, and thus, more user-friendly than the current rules. The discussions of the structure of the proposed rules and the line-by-line descriptions of the proposed rules explain how the findings of this docket have been implemented.
The most significant simplification is a change in terminology. The current rules classify rate adjustments as either Type 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, 2, or 3. These rate adjustment types are associated with rate adjustments based on: the annual limitation only, the annual limitation and unused rate authority, a rate decrease only, an NSA, or an exigent circumstance. The use of the “Type” terminology, which is pervasive throughout the rules, both lengthens the rules (because each of these types must be defined) and makes the rules more difficult to understand (because the reader has to continuously refer back to the definitions to understand the rules). Furthermore, it is also apparent that the differences between Type 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C are in some instances nuanced and difficult to understand, and in some instances immaterial to the application of the rules.
Thus, the proposed rules replace the “Type” terminology with straightforward descriptions that identify the intent of the proceeding. The rules replace the Type 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C terminology with a single type of proceeding simply referred to as “rate adjustments” (which include a limitation on rate increases). The Type 3 terminology is replaced by rules governing “rate adjustments due to extraordinary and exceptional circumstances.” The Type 2 terminology is replaced by rules governing “requests for market dominant [NSAs].” The use of descriptive terms, instead of the “Type” terminology, is intended to improve the readability of the rules and make them more easily comprehendible.
The other significant simplification is to remove most rules concerning market dominant NSAs from 39 CFR part 3010. This proposal is based on the substance of the current NSA rules. Except for rules regulating the treatment of volumes used in general rate adjustment calculations, the majority of the rules concern the Commission's initial review
Under the current rules, whenever the Postal Service proposes a new product (including a new NSA), it must first request that the product be added to the appropriate product list pursuant to the rules appearing in 39 CFR part 3020. Then, the NSA rules appearing in 39 CFR part 3010 are applied in addition to those already imposed by 39 CFR part 3020. Thus, it appears logical to combine both sets of rules within that same part,
In the event of rate adjustments for existing NSAs, under the proposed rules, the Postal Service should file pursuant to 39 CFR part 3020, and not 39 CFR part 3010. These rate adjustments typically do not implicate the requirements of 39 CFR part 3010. The focus of the review will generally be on the statutory requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3622(c)(10), which are implemented through the rules appearing in 39 CFR part 3020.
Several other minor simplifications are proposed. Some existing rules espouse aspirational goals, but fall short of imposing a requirement. For example, existing § 3010.10(b) encourages the Postal Service to provide more than 45 days for public notice of rate adjustments. Other rules merely repeat statutory requirements without imposing any new regulatory requirements. For example, existing § 3010.40 merely restates the special classifications requirements appearing in 39 U.S.C. 3622(c)(10). The proposed rules attempt to eliminate this type of aspirational and duplicative language throughout the regulations.
In certain areas, terminology is changed. For example, the current rules refer to each Postal Service request to review its notice as a “notice.” The proposed rules only refer to a “notice” when referring to a document that is directed towards the public. This includes, for example, a “notice” published in the
The proposed modifications attempt to make other terminology consistent. An example is in the usage of the terminology “unused rate authority,” “banked rate authority,” and “interim rate authority.” Unused rate authority is the remaining amount of the maximum rate adjustment authority not used in any one rate adjustment proceeding. Banked rate adjustment authority is rate authority available for future rate adjustments. Interim rate authority is excess rate authority created when rate adjustments fall more than 12 months apart. Upon calculation of interim rate adjustment authority, it is immediately added to the bank for future use. Thus, it immediately becomes banked rate adjustment authority upon calculation.
Proposed 39 CFR part 3010, the rules governing the Regulation of Rates for Market Dominant Products, is organized into the following nine subparts:
• Subpart A—General Provisions;
• Subpart B—Rate Adjustments;
• Subpart C—Consumer Price Index Rate Authority;
• Subpart D—Supplemental Rate Authority;
• Subpart E—Performance-Based Rate Authority;
• Subpart F—Non-Compensatory Classes or Products;
• Subpart G—Accumulation of Unused and Disbursement of Banked Rate Adjustment Authority;
• Subpart H—Rate Adjustments Due to Extraordinary and Exceptional Circumstances; and
• Subpart I—Workshare Discounts.
Proposed subpart A of 39 CFR part 3010 directs the reader to the appropriate starting point depending on the specific request of the Postal Service. For example, the reader is directed to proposed subpart B of 39 CFR part 3010 as the starting point to adjust market dominant rates of general applicability subject to the periodic limitations in rate increases. These are the typical, generally annual, rate adjustment proceedings. Proposed subpart B of 39 CFR part 3010 directs the reader to proposed subparts C through G of 39 CFR part 3010 to calculate the availability of rate adjustment authority in any one of these proceedings. There are five possible sources of rate adjustment authority: CPI (proposed subpart C of 39 CFR part 3010), supplemental (proposed subpart D of 39 CFR part 3010), performance-based (proposed subpart E of 39 CFR part 3010), non-compensatory (proposed subpart F of 39 CFR part 3010), and banked rate (proposed subpart G of 39 CFR part 3010).
For rate adjustments due to extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, the reader is directed to proposed subpart H of 39 CFR part 3010 as the starting point. Subject to the special procedures and requirements appearing in proposed subpart H of 39 CFR part 3010, however, the concepts espoused in proposed subparts B through G of 39 CFR part 3010 should be followed. For example, when calculating the percentage change in rates for an extraordinary or exceptional rate request, the Postal Service should apply the methodology of proposed § 3010.128, Calculation of percentage change in rates.
Proposed subpart I of 39 CFR part 3010 provides new rules concerning workshare discounts. These rules apply any time a rate that is associated with a workshare discount is adjusted,
The following new subpart is added to existing 39 CFR part 3020, Product Lists:
Subpart G—Requests for Market Dominant Negotiated Service Agreements.
The rules in this subpart are to be applied any time the Postal Service proposes the addition of a new market dominant NSA to the market dominant product list. Any time the Postal Service proposes to modify an existing market dominant NSA (either a rate or another term of the contract), the Commission will review the modifications based on an update to the material originally provided as required by proposed subpart G of 39 CFR part 3010.
Paragraph (b) of proposed § 3010.100 acts as an index to direct the reader to the rules for periodic rate adjustments subject to regulatory limitations, the calculations of the regulatory limitations, rate adjustment due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, and special rules for workshare discounts.
The current requirement to take into consideration how planned rate adjustments are designed to help achieve the objectives listed in 39 U.S.C. 3622(b) and take into account the factors listed in 39 U.S.C. 3622(c), appearing in existing § 3010.12(b)(7), is moved to proposed § 3010.121(b). There is no reporting requirement for this paragraph. However, planned rates that are inconsistent with this provision may be returned to the Postal Service for reconsideration.
There are two notable changes from the current rules. First, the public notice period is extended from at least 45 days to at least 90 days (proposed § 3010.122(b)). Second, the Postal Service will be required to certify that it has used the most recently approved analytical principles in its request (proposed § 3010.122(h)). Currently, the Postal Service must do so, but there is no certification requirement (existing § 3010.12(f)). This change will act as reinforcement to the current requirement, and provide the Postal Service with an opportunity to identify any challenges or limitations on complying with this requirement.
Then, the remaining paragraphs describe the technical documentation that is to be provided with each request. The rules currently appearing in existing § 3010.12(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(9), (c), (d), and (e), which specify technical supporting data to be filed with the Postal Service's request, are moved to proposed § 3010.123(b) through (i). These sections address the provision of data concerning: The calculation of the maximum rate adjustment authority; the schedule of banked rate authority; the calculation of the percentage change in rates; the calculation of unused rate adjustment authority; a schedule of workshare discounts; material concerning new workshare discounts; material concerning new discounts or surcharges not considered a workshare discount; and material concerning rate incentives.
A proposed § 3010.123(j) is added to require the provision of information associated with products or classes where the attributable cost for that class or product exceeded the revenue from that class or product as determined by the most recent ACD made pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3653.
The requirements of existing § 3010.12(b)(6) concerning justifications for workshare discounts that exceed attributable costs are replaced by the material appearing in proposed subpart I of 39 CFR part 3010, Rates Applicable to Workshare Discounts and do not appear in proposed § 3010.123.
A new rule appearing in proposed § 3010.126(a) prescribes potential Commission action when the Postal Service's request does not substantially comply with the filing requirements concerning the contents of a request and the required supporting technical documentation. The Commission may inform the Postal Service of the deficiencies and provide an opportunity for the Postal Service to take corrective action, the Commission may toll or otherwise modify the procedural schedule until such time as the Postal Service takes corrective action, it may dismiss the request without prejudice, or take other action as deemed appropriate by the Commission.
The rules currently appearing in existing § 3010.11(d) through (k), concerning the general procedures for reviewing rate adjustments, are moved to proposed § 3010.126(b) through (j). Within this material, several time periods are modified. The time period from the conclusion of the comment period to the Commission issuing a determination is increased from 14 to 21 days. The comment period concerning any amended notice is increased from 7 to 10 days. The time period from the receipt of an amended notice to the Commission issuing a determination is increased from 14 to 21 days.
Existing § 3010.20(e) imposed no limitation on the amount of a rate decrease. This provision is replaced by a requirement that the rates for non-compensatory products may not be reduced. There is no limitation on the amount of a rate decrease for any other product.
Paragraph (a) of proposed § 3010.128 provides the meaning of “current rate” for the purpose of this section and provides two exceptions to the definition. This material previously appeared in existing § 3010.23(a)(1).
Paragraph (b) of proposed § 3010.128 describes the determination of volumes associated with each rate cell. This material currently appears in existing § 3010.23(d).
Paragraph (c) of proposed § 3010.128 describes the process for calculating the percentage change in rates when rates are being increased. This material currently appears in existing § 3010.23(b)(1).
Paragraph (d) of proposed § 3010.128 describes the process for calculating the percentage change in rates when rates are being decreased. This explanation currently appears in existing § 3010.23(b)(2).
Paragraph (e) of proposed § 3010.128 provides the formula for calculating the percentage change in rates. The formula currently appears in existing § 3010.23(c).
Paragraph (f) of proposed § 3010.128 describes the treatment of volume associated with rate incentives where the rates are not of general applicability. This material currently appears in existing § 3010.23(e).
Paragraph (g) of proposed § 3010.128 describes the treatment of volume associated with NSAs and rate incentives not of general applicability. This material currently appears in existing § 3010.24.
The rate authority must be applied, if at all, to the first generally applicable rate increase filed within a calendar year. The rate authority becomes effective on January 1 and lapses on December 31 if unused. If unused, or if not fully used, the unused portion may not be banked for future use. The Commission intends to also apply the no banking rule (proposed § 3010.180(b)(5)) to any attempt to circumvent the intent of this provision, such as filing a rate increase immediately followed by the filing of a rate decrease in order to create banked rate authority.
The Commission's finding in the ACD may be challenged. Any interested person may challenge the finding within 30 days of the ACD being issued. Once challenged, the Commission shall rule on the challenge within 60 days of the challenge being filed. The subject matter of the challenge is limited to changes in service standards or business rules that occur on a national or substantially nationwide basis. Whether or not the Postal Service is meeting its service standards shall not be the subject of this form of challenge.
Paragraph (c) of proposed § 3010.202 prescribes that the rate authority must be applied, if at all, to the first generally applicable rate increase filed within a calendar year. The rate authority becomes effective on January 1 and lapses on December 31 if unused. If unused, or if not fully used, the unused portion may not be banked for future use. The Commission intends to also apply the no banking rule (proposed § 3010.202(c)(4)) to any attempt to circumvent the intent of this provision, such as filing a rate increase immediately followed by the filing of a rate decrease in order to create banked rate authority.
Paragraph (b) of proposed § 3010.222 imposes a requirement where a class of mail is non-compensatory. In that instance, unused rate adjustment authority cannot be generated or banked. Potential unused rate adjustment authority that may be banked is assumed to be zero. This also forecloses the possibility of banking negative rate authority in times of deflation.
Paragraph (c) of proposed § 3010.222 limits the maximum amount of unused rate adjustment authority that can be banked to the unused portion of the CPI rate authority.
The material currently appearing in existing § 3010.26(c)(2), which provides the formula for calculating the interim rate adjustment authority, is moved to proposed § 3010.223(b). There is no intent to change the meaning or operation of this rule.
The rules currently appearing in existing § 3010.26(b), concerning the calculation of unused rate adjustment authority, are moved to proposed § 3010.223(c) (Note that this is essentially the same calculation as appears in proposed § 3010.222(a) above). The calculation is changed to reflect that the maximum rate adjustment authority may include CPI, supplemental, performance-based, and non-compensatory rate authority, whereas CPI rate authority is currently the only source of new rate adjustment authority. Otherwise, there is no intent to change the meaning or operation of the rules currently in place.
Paragraph (d) of proposed § 3010.222 imposes a requirement where a class of mail is non-compensatory. In that instance, unused rate adjustment authority cannot be generated or banked. Potential unused rate adjustment that may be banked is assumed to be zero. This also forecloses the possibility of banking negative rate authority in times of deflation.
Paragraph (e) of proposed § 3010.222 limits the maximum amount of unused rate adjustment authority that can be banked to the unused portion of the CPI rate authority.
Paragraph (c) in proposed § 3010.224 limits the maximum amount of unused rate adjustment authority that can be banked to the unused portion of the CPI rate authority, referenced back to the most recent rate adjustment filing that involved a rate increase.
Paragraph (f) of proposed § 3010.224 concerning possible interactions with exigent rate requests, currently appearing in existing § 3010.6(b)(2), is added to this rule.
The rule currently appearing in existing § 3010.29, which limits use of banked rate adjustment authority to 2 percent in any 12-month period, is moved to proposed § 3010.225(c). Direction is added to modify the schedule of banked rate adjustment authority, whenever this authority is used, as of the date of the final order accepting the rates.
The rule currently appearing in existing § 3010.26(d), which explains how interim rate authority may be used, is moved to proposed § 3010.225(d).
The rule currently appearing in existing § 3010.28, which explains that banked rate adjustment authority must be used utilizing the first-in-first-out method beginning 5 years before the filing date of the instant notice, is moved to proposed § 3010.225(e). The wording is changed for consistency with other paragraphs of this section.
The rule currently appearing in existing § 3010.26(e), which explains that banked rate adjustment authority lapses 5 years from the filing date of the request leading to its calculation, is moved to proposed § 3010.225(f).
The rules currently appearing in 39 CFR part 3010, subpart E (existing § 3010.60
Whenever a new NSA is proposed, a primary consideration is whether the agreement is properly classified as either market dominant or competitive. The starting point for considering the proper classification is the rules appearing in 39 CFR part 3020. Those rules govern the MCS and the addition, deletion, or transfer of a product to either the market dominant product list or the competitive product list. The rules currently appearing in 39 CFR part 3010, subpart D generally assist in the analysis required by 39 CFR part 3020. The remainder of the rules governing the regulation of rates appearing in 39 CFR part 3010 are generally not implicated. Thus, the rules currently appearing in existing 39 CFR part 3010, subpart D, concerning NSAs, are moved to proposed 39 CFR part 3020, subpart G.
In several instances, the rules currently appearing in 39 CFR part 3010, subpart D are duplicative of the rules appearing in 39 CFR part 3020. Moving these provisions allows for streamlining of the rules. There is no intent to change the meaning or operation of the rules currently in place. The move should clarify that a proposal to add a new NSA is to be filed pursuant to 39 CFR part 3020. Furthermore, in most instances adjustments to rates for existing NSAs require a review of the material previously provided pursuant to 39 CFR part 3020. Again, the rules governing the regulation of rates appearing in 39 CFR part 3010 are generally not implicated. Thus, requests concerning the adjustment of rates for NSAs should be filed as a contract update pursuant to 39 CFR part 3020.
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Richard A. Oliver shall continue to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
The Commission will accept comments and reply comments concerning whether the proposed changes outlined by this rulemaking achieves the objectives in 39 U.S.C. 3622(b). Comments are due no later than March 1, 2018. Reply comments are due no later than March 30, 2018.
Commission rules require that comments (including reply comments) be filed online according to the process outlined at 39 CFR 3001.9(a), unless a waiver is obtained. Additional information regarding how to submit comments online can be found at:
1. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Richard A. Oliver shall continue to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
2. Comments regarding the proposed rulemaking are due no later than March 1, 2018.
3. Reply comments regarding the proposed rulemaking are due no later than March 30, 2018.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
The United States Postal Service faces tests in nearly every conceivable scenario as it, a venerable institution instrumental in the founding of our Nation, moves further into the 21st century. Many of the Postal Service's greatest challenges are not a primary result of the rates that it charges its customers and partners. Comprehensive legislative reform is best suited for brokering compromise and tailoring outcomes in this landscape where such divergent interests must coexist. The last few years have seen significant bipartisan efforts in Congress to craft such reform, and it has yet to come to fruition. The Commission does not have the ability to allow the Postal Service to re-amortize unfunded liabilities, administer employee benefits differently, change the frequency of delivery, or deliver profitable items restricted by statute. In short, there is no action the Commission can take to substitute for meaningful legislative reform, and I urge Congress to continue to work toward that goal.
The Commission, however, cannot shirk its lawful responsibility to review and, if necessary, propose and implement regulations to address flaws in the market dominant ratemaking system. If the Commission determines that the PAEA's range of objectives are not being met, the law empowers the Commission to attempt improvements via the use of one tool alone—reform to the system for regulating rates and classes for market dominant products. In other words, this singular device—the ratemaking system—may be wielded by the regulator in an effort to achieve these objectives.
The Commission, including its expert legal and technical staff, has undertaken a time and resource intensive effort to review the previous 10 years' experience under the PAEA and chart a path forward that is responsive to its statutory duty. I have the highest regard for the Postal Service and its customers. As a Postal Rate and Postal Regulatory Commissioner, my record is replete with examples of my concern for postal customers' interests and sensitivity to rate adjustments. I look forward to hearing from the mailing community with comments that demonstrate, based on solid quantitative technical and well-supported legal analysis, how the Commission's proposal may be improved.
As the Commission has recognized in its annual reports to the President and Congress, there is a tension between the restrictions of an inflation-based price cap on market dominant price increases and the objectives established in section 3622(b), in particular, the objective that the Postal Service has adequate revenues and retained earnings in order to maintain financial stability.
For this reason, I approve moving forward with this rulemaking and will continue to work actively in establishing a ratemaking system that provides the necessary balance to ensure the financial viability of the Postal Service with affordable and predictable rates for ratepayers.
I respectfully disagree with the Commission's decision to propose the changes contained in this Order because, rather than balancing all the objectives of 39 U.S.C. 3622, the proposed changes elevate the financial stability objective above the others.
As I explained in my concurring statement to Order No. 4257, the existing ratemaking system has not provided the Postal Service with revenues adequate to maintain financial stability. However, I have also concluded that a significant portion of the Postal Service's financial instability results from an overly aggressive retiree health benefits prefunding schedule—which warrants a legislative solution—and from the Postal Service's decision in 2007 not to pursue the final cost-of-service rate increase authorized by the PAEA. Therefore, I would propose a one-time price increase that raises the Postal Service's finances to the level needed to ensure stability absent those two factors, while leaving the price cap intact for future rate adjustments.
In contrast, the changes proposed in this Order essentially constitute a return to the PRA's cost-of-service rates, but without any of the protections of the PRA framework.
The PRA afforded the Postal Service the ability to recover all its costs through price increases, but accordingly made it forgo pricing flexibility and subjected it to significant regulatory scrutiny. The PAEA freed up the Postal Service's flexibility to set prices as it sees fit. But, it also simultaneously imposed the constraint of an overall price cap to protect customers.
The changes proposed in this Order would grant the Postal Service the benefits of both systems and require of it the sacrifices of neither.
I am especially troubled by what effect these changes may have if the Postal Service's finances deteriorate in unforeseen ways. This Order is committed to price increases that deliver revenues equaling the sum of all the Postal Service's costs, whatever they may be, with additional revenues to cover long-term capital expenditures. This is a laudable goal. But, if the Postal Service's costs (particularly its structural costs) increase unexpectedly, the logic of this Order would require ever-increasing prices, even if that would drive away mail volume at a rate that could put the Postal Service out of business.
A second concern I have is the questionable regulatory complexity that this Order seeks to overlay on what has been, until now, a straightforward and pragmatic ratemaking system. For example, tying 0.75 percent of pricing authority to Commission-approved efficiency and 0.25 percent of pricing authority to Commission-approved service performance creates unnecessary regulatory hurdles.
Of course, we must go through a formal process seeking public input in order to replace the current system and this proposal is no more than a starting point. All the Commissioners agree that some change is needed to the
I am hopeful that, with the input of all stakeholders, the Commission can arrive at a balanced resolution to this review process.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend Chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
39 U.S.C. 503; 3622.
(a) The rules in this part implement provisions in 39 U.S.C. chapter 36, subchapter I, establishing the system of ratemaking for market dominant products. These rules are applicable whenever the Postal Service proposes to adjust a rate of general applicability for any market dominant product, which includes the addition of a new rate, the removal of an existing rate, or a change to an existing rate. Current rates may be found in the Mail Classification Schedule appearing on the Commission's Web site at
(b) Rates may be adjusted either subject to the rules appearing in subpart B of this part, which includes a limitation on rate increases, or subject to the rules appearing in subpart H of this part, which does not include a limitation on rate increases, but requires either extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. The rules applicable to the calculation of the limitations on rate increases appear in subparts C through G of this part. The rules for workshare discounts, which are applicable whenever market dominant rates are adjusted, appear in subpart I of this part.
(a) The definitions in paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section apply in this part.
(b) “Annual limitation” means the annual limitation on the percentage change in rates equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers unadjusted for seasonal variation over the most recent available 12-month period preceding the date the Postal Service files a request to review rate adjustments as determined by the Commission.
(c) “Banked rate authority” means unused rate adjustment authority accumulated for future use pursuant to these rules.
(d) A “class” of mail means the First-Class Mail, USPS Marketing Mail, Periodicals, Package Services, or Special Services groupings of market dominant Postal Service products or services. Generally, the regulations in this part are applicable to individual classes of mail.
(e) “Maximum rate adjustment authority” means the maximum percentage change in rates available to a class for any planned increase in rates. It is based upon the consumer price index rate authority, and any available supplemental rate authority, banked rate authority, performance-based rate authority, and rate authority applicable to non-compensatory classes.
(f) “Performance-based rate authority” means rate authority which is available to all classes where the Postal Service meets or exceeds operational efficiency-based standards or adheres to service quality-related criteria as determined in the most recent Annual Compliance Determination.
(g) “Rate authority applicable to non-compensatory classes” means rate authority available to classes where revenue was insufficient to cover attributable costs as determined in the most recent Annual Compliance Determination.
(h) “Rate cell” means each and every separate rate identified in any planned rate adjustment for rates of general applicability.
(i) “Rate incentive” means a discount that is not a workshare discount and that is designed to increase or retain volume, improve the value of mail for mailers, or improve the operations of the Postal Service.
(j) “Rate of general applicability” means a rate applicable to all mail meeting standards established by the Mail Classification Schedule, the Domestic Mail Manual, and the International Mail Manual. A rate is not a rate of general applicability if eligibility for the rate is dependent on factors other than the characteristics of the mail to which the rate applies. A rate is not a rate of general applicability if it benefits a single mailer. A rate that is only available upon the written agreement of both the Postal Service and a mailer, a group of mailers, or a foreign postal operator is not a rate of general applicability.
(k) A “seasonal or temporary rate” is a rate that is in effect for a limited and defined period of time.
(a) The Postal Service shall develop a Schedule for Regular and Predictable Rate Adjustments applicable to rate adjustments subject to this part. The Schedule for Regular and Predictable Rate Adjustments shall:
(1) Schedule rate adjustments at specific regular intervals,
(2) provide estimated filing and implementation dates (month and year) for future rate adjustments for each class of mail expected over a minimum of the next 3 years, and
(3) provide an explanation that will allow mailers to predict with reasonable accuracy, by class, the amounts of future scheduled rate adjustments.
(b) The Postal Service shall file a current Schedule for Regular and Predictable Rate Adjustments annually with the Commission at the time it files its Annual Compliance Determination Report pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3652. The Commission shall post the current schedule on the Commission's Web site at
(c) Whenever the Postal Service deems it appropriate to change the Schedule for Regular and Predictable Rate Adjustments, it shall file a revised schedule.
(d) The Postal Service may vary the magnitude of rate adjustments from those estimated by the Schedule for Regular and Predictable Rate Adjustments. In such case, the Postal Service shall provide an explanation for such variation with its rate adjustment filing.
This subpart describes the process for the periodic adjustment of rates subject to the percentage limitations specified in § 3010.127 which are applicable to each class of mail.
(a) In every instance in which the Postal Service determines to exercise its statutory authority to adjust rates for a class of mail, the Postal Service shall comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(b) The Postal Service shall take into consideration how the planned rate adjustments are designed to help achieve the objectives listed in 39 U.S.C. 3622(b) and take into account the factors listed in 39 U.S.C. 3622(c).
(c) The Postal Service shall provide public notice of its request and planned rates in a manner reasonably designed to inform the mailing community and the general public that it intends to adjust rates no later than 90 days prior to the intended implementation date of the rate adjustment.
(d) The Postal Service shall transmit a request to review its notice of rate adjustment to the Commission no later than 90 days prior to the intended implementation date of the rate adjustment.
(a) The request shall include the items specified in paragraphs (b) through (j) of this section.
(b) A representation or evidence that public notice of the planned changes has been issued or will be issued at least 90 days before the effective date(s) for the planned rates.
(c) The intended effective date(s) of the planned rates.
(d) A schedule of the planned rates, including a schedule identifying every change to the Mail Classification Schedule that will be necessary to implement the planned rate adjustments.
(e) The identity of a responsible Postal Service official who will be available to provide prompt responses to requests for clarification from the Commission.
(f) The supporting technical documentation as described in § 3010.123.
(g) A demonstration that the planned rate adjustments are consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3626, 3627, and 3629.
(h) A certification that all cost, avoided cost, volume, and revenue figures submitted with the request are developed from the most recent applicable Commission approved analytical principles.
(i) For a rate adjustment that only includes a decrease in rates, a statement of whether the Postal Service elects to generate unused rate adjustment authority.
(j) Such other information as the Postal Service believes will assist the Commission to issue a timely determination of whether the planned rate adjustments are consistent with applicable statutory policies.
(a) Supporting technical documentation shall include the items specified in paragraphs (b) through (j) of this section, as applicable to the specific request. This information must be supported by workpapers in which all calculations are shown and all relevant values (
(b) The maximum rate adjustment authority, by class, as summarized by § 3010.127 and calculated separately for each of subparts C through G of this part, as appropriate.
(c) A schedule showing the banked rate adjustment authority available, by class, and the available amount for each of the preceding 5 years calculated as required by subpart G of this part.
(d) The calculation of the percentage change in rates, by class, calculated as required by § 3010.128.
(e) The amount of new unused rate adjustment authority, by class, if any, that will be generated by the rate adjustment calculated as required by subpart G of this part, as applicable.
(f) A schedule of the workshare discounts included with the planned rates, and a companion schedule listing the avoided costs that underlie each such discount.
(g) Whenever the Postal Service establishes a new workshare discount rate, it must include with its filing:
(1) A statement explaining its reasons for establishing the discount;
(2) All data, economic analyses, and other information relied on to justify the discount; and
(3) A certification based on comprehensive, competent analyses that the discount will not adversely affect either the rates or the service levels of users of postal services who do not take advantage of the discount.
(h) Whenever the Postal Service establishes a new discount or surcharge rate it does not view as creating a workshare discount, it must include with its filing:
(1) An explanation of the basis for its view that the discount or surcharge rate is not a workshare discount; and
(2) A certification that the Postal Service applied approved analytical principles to the discount or surcharge rate.
(i) Whenever the Postal Service includes a rate incentive with its planned rate adjustment, it must include with its filing:
(1) If the rate incentive is a rate of general applicability, sufficient information to demonstrate that the rate incentive is a rate of general applicability; and
(2) A statement of whether the Postal Service has excluded the rate incentive from the calculation of the percentage change in rates under § 3010.128.
(j) For each class or product where the attributable cost for that class or product exceeded the revenue from that class or product as determined by the most recent Annual Compliance Determination issued pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3653, a demonstration that the planned rates comply with the requirements in subpart F of this part.
(a) The Commission will establish a docket for each rate adjustment filed by the Postal Service, promptly publish notice of the filing in the
(b) The general nature of the proceeding.
(c) A reference to legal authority under which the proceeding is to be conducted.
(d) A concise description of the planned changes in rates, fees, and the Mail Classification Schedule.
(e) The identification of an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the docket.
(f) A period of 30 days from the date of the filing for public comment.
(g) Such other information as the Commission deems appropriate.
Public comments should focus on whether planned rate adjustments comport with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
(a) If the Commission determines that the request does not substantially comply with the requirements of §§ 3010.122 and 3010.123, the Commission may:
(1) Inform the Postal Service of the deficiencies and provide an opportunity for the Postal Service to take corrective action;
(2) Toll or otherwise modify the procedural schedule until such time the Postal Service takes corrective action;
(3) Dismiss the request without prejudice; or
(4) Take other action as deemed appropriate by the Commission.
(b) Within 21 days of the conclusion of the public comment period the Commission will determine, at a minimum, whether the planned rate adjustments are consistent with applicable law,
(c) If the planned rate adjustments are found consistent with applicable law, they may take effect.
(d) If planned rate adjustments are found inconsistent with applicable law, the Commission will notify and require the Postal Service to respond to any issues of noncompliance.
(e) Following the Commission's notice of noncompliance, the Postal Service may submit an amended request that describes the modifications to its planned rate adjustments that will bring its rate adjustments into compliance. An amended request shall be accompanied by sufficient explanatory information to show that all deficiencies identified by the Commission have been corrected.
(f) The Commission will allow a period of 10 days from the date of the filing of an amended request for public comment.
(g) The Commission will review the amended request together with any comments filed for compliance and within 21 days issue an order announcing its findings.
(h) If the planned rate adjustments as amended are found to be consistent with applicable law, they may take effect. However, no amended rate shall take effect until 45 days after the Postal Service files its request specifying that rate.
(i) If the planned rate adjustments in an amended request are found to be inconsistent with applicable law, the Commission shall explain the basis of its determination and suggest an appropriate remedy. Noncompliant rates may not go into effect.
(j) A Commission finding that a planned rate adjustment is in compliance with the maximum rate adjustment authority as summarized by § 3010.127 and calculated pursuant to subparts C through G of this part, as applicable, the workshare discount limitations pursuant to subpart I of this part, and 39 U.S.C. 3626, 3627, and 3629 is decided on the merits. A Commission finding that a planned rate adjustment does not contravene other policies of 39 U.S.C. chapter 36, subchapter I is provisional and subject to subsequent review.
(a) The maximum rate adjustment authority available to the Postal Service for each class of market dominant mail is limited to the sum of the percentage points developed in:
(1) Subpart C— Consumer Price Index Rate Authority;
(2) Subpart D—Supplemental Rate Authority;
(3) Subpart E—Performance-Based Rate Authority;
(4) Subpart F—Non-compensatory Classes or Products; and
(5) Subpart G—Accumulation of Unused and Disbursement of Banked Rate Adjustment Authority.
(b) For any product where the attributable cost for that product exceeded the revenue from that product as determined in the most recent Annual Compliance Determination, rates may not be reduced.
(a) For the purpose of calculating the percentage change in rates, the current rate is the rate in effect when the Postal Service files the request with the following exceptions.
(1) A seasonal or temporary rate shall be identified and treated as a rate cell separate and distinct from the corresponding non-seasonal or permanent rate. When used with respect to a seasonal or temporary rate, the current rate is the most recent rate in effect for the rate cell, regardless of whether the seasonal or temporary rate is available at the time the Postal Service files the request.
(2) When used with respect to a rate cell that corresponds to a rate incentive that was previously excluded from the calculation of the percentage change in rates, the current rate is the full undiscounted rate in effect for the rate cell at the time of the filing of the request, not the discounted rate in effect for the rate cell at such time.
(b) For the purpose of calculating the percentage change in rates, the volumes for each rate cell shall be obtained from the most recent available 12 months of Postal Service billing determinants with the following permissible adjustments.
(1) The Postal Service shall make reasonable adjustments to the billing determinants to account for the effects of classification changes such as the introduction, deletion, or redefinition of rate cells. The Postal Service shall identify and explain all adjustments. All information and calculations relied upon to develop the adjustments shall be provided together with an explanation of why the adjustments are appropriate.
(2) Whenever possible, adjustments shall be based on known mail characteristics or historical volume data, as opposed to forecasts of mailer behavior.
(3) For an adjustment accounting for the effects of the deletion of a rate cell when an alternate rate cell is not available, the Postal Service should adjust the billing determinants associated with the rate cell to zero. If the Postal Service does not adjust the billing determinants for the rate cell to zero, the Postal Service shall include a rationale for its treatment of the rate cell with the information required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(c) For a rate adjustment that involves a rate increase, for each class of mail and product within the class, the percentage change in rates is calculated in three steps. First, the volume of each rate cell in the class is multiplied by the planned rate for the respective cell and the resulting products are summed. Second, the same set of rate cell volumes are multiplied by the corresponding current rate for each cell and the resulting products are summed. Third, the percentage change in rates is calculated by dividing the results of the first step by the results of the second step and subtracting 1 from the quotient. The result is expressed as a percentage.
(d) For rate adjustments that only involve a rate decrease, for each class of mail and product within the class, the percentage change in rates is calculated by amending the workpapers attached to the Commission's order relating to the most recent request to adjust rates that involved a rate increase to replace the planned rates under the most recent request that involves a rate increase with the corresponding planned rates applicable to the class from the request involving only a rate decrease.
(e) The formula for calculating the percentage change in rates for a class described in paragraph (c) of this section is as follows:
Percentage change in rates =
Ri,c = current rate of rate cell i (for rate adjustment involving a rate increase) or rate from most recent rate adjustment involving a rate increase for rate cell i (for a rate adjustment only involving a rate decrease)
(f) Treatment of rate incentives.
(1) Rate incentives may be excluded from a percentage change in rates calculation. If the Postal Service elects to exclude a rate incentive from a percentage change in rates calculation, the rate incentive shall be treated in the same manner as a rate under a negotiated service agreement (as described in § 3010.128(g)).
(2) A rate incentive may be included in a percentage change in rates calculation if it meets the following criteria:
(i) The rate incentive is in the form of a discount or can be easily translated into a discount;
(ii) Sufficient billing determinants are available for the rate incentive to be included in the percentage change in rate calculation for the class, which may be adjusted based on known mail characteristics or historical volume data (as opposed to forecasts of mailer behavior); and
(iii) The rate incentive is a rate of general applicability.
(g) Treatment of volume associated with negotiated service agreements and rate incentives that are not rates of general applicability.
(1) Mail volumes sent at rates under a negotiated service agreement or a rate incentive that is not a rate of general applicability are to be included in the calculation of percentage change in rates under this section as though they paid the appropriate rates of general applicability. Where it is impractical to identify the rates of general applicability (
(2) The Postal Service shall identify and explain all assumptions it makes with respect to the treatment of negotiated service agreements and rate incentives that are not rates of general applicability in the calculation of the percentage change in rates and provide the rationale for its assumptions.
(a) The Postal Service may request review of a de minimis rate increase without immediately calculating the maximum rate adjustment authority or banking unused rate adjustment authority. For this exception to apply, requests to review de minimis rate adjustments must be filed separately from any other request to adjust rates.
(b) Rate adjustments resulting in rate increases are de minimis if:
(1) For each affected class, the rate increases do not result in the percentage change in rates for the class equaling or exceeding 0.001 percent; and
(2) For each affected class, the sum of all rate increases included in de minimis rate increases since the most recent rate adjustment resulting in a rate increase, or the most recent rate adjustment due to extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, that was not a de minimis rate increase does not result in the percentage change in rates for the class equaling or exceeding 0.001 percent.
(c) If the rate adjustments are de minimis, no unused rate adjustment authority will be added to the schedule of banked rate adjustment authority maintained under subpart G of this part as a result of the de minimis rate increase.
(d) If the rate adjustments are de minimis, no rate decreases may be taken into account when determining whether rate increases comply with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(e) In the next request proposing to increase rates for a class that is not a de minimis rate increase:
(1) The maximum rate adjustment authority shall be calculated as if the de minimis rate increase had not been filed; and
(2) For purposes of calculating the percentage change in rates, the current rate shall be the current rate from the de minimis rate increase.
(f) The Postal Service shall file supporting workpapers with each request to review a de minimis rate increase that demonstrate that the sum of all rate increases included in de
(g) For any product where the attributable cost for that product exceeded the revenue from that product as determined in the most recent Annual Compliance Determination, rates may not be reduced.
The Postal Service may adjust rates based upon changes in the consumer price index identified in § 3010.141. If requests involving rate increases are filed 12 or more months apart, rate adjustments are subject to a full year limitation calculated pursuant to § 3010.142. If requests involving rate increases are filed less than 12 months apart, rate adjustments are subject to a partial year limitation calculated pursuant to § 3010.143.
The monthly CPI-U values needed for the calculation of rate adjustment limitations under this section shall be obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers, U.S. All Items, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Base Period 1982-84 = 100. The current Series ID for the index is “CUUR0000SA0.”
(a) If a request involving a rate increase is filed 12 or more months after the most recent request involving a rate increase, then the calculation of an annual limitation for the class (full year limitation) involves three steps. First, a simple average CPI-U index is calculated by summing the most recently available 12 monthly CPI-U values from the date the Postal Service files its request and dividing the sum by 12 (Recent Average). Second, a second simple average CPI-U index is similarly calculated by summing the 12 monthly CPI-U values immediately preceding the Recent Average and dividing the sum by 12 (Base Average). Third, the full year limitation is calculated by dividing the Recent Average by the Base Average and subtracting 1 from the quotient. The result is expressed as a percentage, rounded to three decimal places.
(b) The formula for calculating a full year limitation for a request filed 12 or more months after the last request is as follows: Full Year Limitation = (Recent Average/Base Average)−1.
(a) If a request involving a rate increase is filed less than 12 months after the most recent request involving a rate increase, then the annual limitation for the class (partial year limitation) will recognize the rate increases that have occurred during the preceding 12 months. When the effects of those increases are removed, the remaining partial year limitation is the applicable restriction on rate increases.
(b) The applicable partial year limitation is calculated in two steps. First, a simple average CPI-U index is calculated by summing the 12 most recently available monthly CPI-U values from the date the Postal Service files its request and dividing the sum by 12 (Recent Average). Second, the partial year limitation is then calculated by dividing the Recent Average by the Recent Average from the most recent previous request (Previous Recent Average) applicable to each affected class of mail and subtracting 1 from the quotient. The result is expressed as a percentage, rounded to three decimal places.
(c) The formula for calculating the partial year limitation for a request filed less than 12 months after the last request is as follows: Partial Year Limitation = (Recent Average/Previous Recent Average) − 1.
(a) This subpart allocates supplemental rate authority of 2 percentage points per class per annum. The rate authority provided in this subpart is available in each of the first 5 full calendar years following the effective date of these rules.
(b) Any rate authority allocated under this subpart:
(1) Shall be made available to the Postal Service as of January 1 of each calendar year;
(2) Must be included in the calculation of the maximum rate adjustment authority in the first generally applicable rate adjustment filed in any calendar year;
(3) Shall lapse if not used in the first generally applicable rate adjustment filed in any calendar year;
(4) Shall lapse if unused, on December 31 of the applicable calendar year; and
(5) May not be used to generate unused rate authority, nor shall it affect existing banked rate authority.
(a) This subpart allocates performance-based rate authority of up to 1 percentage point for each class of mail, which is available upon meeting or exceeding an operational efficiency-based standard and adhering to service quality-related criteria as determined by the most recent Annual Compliance Determination issued pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3653. Of this rate authority, 0.75 percentage points is allocated based on meeting the operational efficiency-based rate authority requirements appearing in § 3010.181. Of this rate authority, 0.25 percentage points is allocated based on meeting the service quality-based rate authority requirements appearing in § 3010.182.
(b) Any rate authority allocated under this subpart:
(1) Shall be made available to the Postal Service as of January 1 of each calendar year as determined by the most recent Annual Compliance Determination;
(2) Must be included in the calculation of the maximum rate adjustment authority in the first generally applicable rate adjustment filed in any calendar year;
(3) Shall lapse if not used in the first generally applicable rate adjustment filed in any calendar year;
(4) Shall lapse if unused, on December 31 of the applicable calendar year; and
(5) May not be used to generate unused rate authority, nor shall it affect existing banked rate authority.
Operational efficiency-based rate authority shall be allocated for each class of mail if the Postal Service's average annual total factor productivity growth over the most recent 5 years meets or exceeds 0.6 percent as determined by the most recent Annual Compliance Determination issued pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3653.
(a) Service quality-based rate authority shall be allocated for a class of mail if all of the Postal Service's service standards (including applicable business rules) for that class during the applicable fiscal year meet or exceed the service standards in place for the prior fiscal year on a nationwide or
(b) Any interested person may file a challenge to the Commission's determination to allocate service quality-based rate authority within 30 days of the Commission issuing the Annual Compliance Determination. The scope of such a challenge shall be limited to whether or not the Postal Service's service standards (including applicable business rules) during the applicable fiscal year met or exceeded the service standards in place for the prior fiscal year on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis. The Commission shall issue an order which rules on any challenge within 60 days of the filing of the challenge. The order shall specify how much, if any, service quality-based rate authority is authorized for the upcoming calendar year.
This subpart is applicable to a class or product where the attributable cost for that class or product exceeded the revenue from that class or product as determined by the most recent Annual Compliance Determination issued pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3653. Section 3010.201 is applicable where the attributable cost for a product within a class, exceeded the revenue from that particular product. Section 3010.202 is applicable where the attributable cost for an entire class exceeded the revenue from that class.
Whenever the Postal Service files a request affecting a class of mail which includes a product where the attributable cost for that product exceeded the revenue from that product, as determined by the most recent Annual Compliance Determination issued pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3653, the Postal Service shall increase the rates for that product by a minimum of 2 percentage points above the percentage increase for that class. This section does not create additional rate authority applicable to any class of mail.
(a) This section provides 2 percentage points of additional rate authority for any class of mail where the attributable cost for that class exceeded the revenue from that class as determined by the most recent Annual Compliance Determination issued pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3653.
(b) When the Postal Service files the first generally applicable rate adjustment in any calendar year affecting a class of mail where the attributable cost for that class exceeded the revenue from that class, the Postal Service must use all available rate authority, including consumer price index rate authority, supplemental rate authority, performance-based rate authority and banked rate authority, plus an additional 2 percentage points.
(c) Any rate authority allocated under this subpart:
(1) Shall be made available to the Postal Service as of January 1 of each calendar year as determined by the most recent Annual Compliance Determination;
(2) Must be included in the calculation of the maximum rate adjustment authority change in rates in the first generally applicable rate adjustment filed in any calendar year;
(3) Shall lapse if unused, on December 31 of the applicable calendar year; and
(4) May not be used to generate unused rate authority, nor shall it affect existing banked rate authority.
Unless a specific exception applies, unused rate adjustment authority, on a class-by-class basis, shall be calculated for each request filed by the Postal Service. Unused rate adjustment authority shall be added to the schedule of banked rate authority in each instance, and be available for application to rate adjustments pursuant to the requirements of this subpart.
Upon the establishment of unused rate adjustment authority, the Postal Service shall devise and maintain a schedule that tracks the establishment and subsequent use of banked rate authority on a class-by-class basis. At a minimum, the schedule must track the amount of banked rate authority available immediately prior to the filing of a request and the amount of banked rate authority available upon acceptance of the rates included in the request. It shall also track all changes to the schedule, including the docket numbers of Commission decisions affecting the schedule, the dates and amounts that any rate authority was generated or subsequently expended, and the expiration dates of all rate adjustment authority. The schedule shall be included with any request purporting to modify the amount of banked rate adjustment authority.
(a) When requests that involve a rate increase are filed 12 months apart or less, unused rate adjustment authority for a class is equal to the difference between the maximum rate adjustment authority as summarized by § 3010.127 and calculated pursuant to subparts C through G of this part, as appropriate, and the percentage change in rates for the class calculated pursuant to § 3010.128, subject to the limitations described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) Unused rate adjustment authority cannot be generated and is assumed to be 0 percent for classes subject to § 3010.202, Class requirement and additional class rate authority.
(c) For requests that involve a rate increase, unused rate adjustment authority cannot exceed the unused portion of rate authority determined pursuant to subpart C of this part, Consumer Price Index Rate Authority.
(a) When requests that involve a rate increase are filed more than 12 months apart, any interim rate adjustment authority must first be added to the schedule of banked rate authority before the unused rate adjustment authority is calculated.
(b) Interim rate adjustment authority for a class is equal to the Base Average applicable to the second request (as developed pursuant to § 3010.142) divided by the Recent Average utilized in the first request (as developed pursuant to § 3010.142) and subtracting 1 from the quotient. The result is expressed as a percentage and immediately added to the schedule of banked rate authority as of the date the request is filed.
(c) Unused rate adjustment authority for a class is equal to the difference between the maximum rate adjustment authority as summarized by § 3010.127 and calculated pursuant to subparts C through G of this part, as appropriate, and the percentage change in rates for the class calculated pursuant to § 3010.128, subject to the limitations described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
(d) Unused rate adjustment authority cannot be generated and is assumed to be 0 percent for classes subject to § 3010.202, Class requirement and additional class rate authority.
(e) For requests that involve a rate increase, unused rate adjustment authority cannot exceed the unused portion of rate authority determined pursuant to subpart C of this part, Consumer Price Index Rate Authority.
(a) For requests that only include rate decreases, unused rate adjustment authority for a class is calculated in two steps. First, the difference between the maximum rate adjustment authority as summarized by § 3010.127 and calculated pursuant to subparts C through G of this part, as appropriate for the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase and the percentage change in rates for the class calculated pursuant to § 3010.128(d) is calculated. Second, the unused rate adjustment authority generated in the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase is subtracted from that result.
(b) Unused rate adjustment authority generated under paragraph (a) of this section for a class shall be added to the unused rate adjustment authority generated in the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase on the schedule maintained under § 3010.221. For purposes of § 3010.224, the unused rate adjustment authority generated under paragraph (a) of this section for a class shall be deemed to have been added to the schedule maintained under § 3010.221 on the same date as the most recent request that involves a rate increase.
(c) For requests that only include rate decreases, the sum of unused rate adjustment authority generated under paragraph (a) of this section and the unused rate adjustment authority generated in the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase cannot exceed the unused portion of rate adjustment authority determined pursuant to subpart C of this part, Rate Authority Based Upon Consumer Price Index in the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase.
(d) Unused rate adjustment authority generated under paragraph (a) of this section shall be subject to the limitation under § 3010.225, regardless of whether it is used alone or in combination with other existing unused rate adjustment authority.
(e) For requests that only include rate decreases, unused rate adjustment authority generated under this section lapses 5 years from the date of filing of the most recent request that involves a rate increase.
(f) A request that only includes rate decreases that is filed immediately after a rate adjustment due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances (
(a) Banked rate authority may be applied to any planned rate adjustment subject to the limitations appearing in (b) through (f) of this section.
(b) Banked rate authority may only be applied to a proposal to adjust rates after applying rate authority based upon the consumer price index pursuant to subpart C of this part, supplemental rate authority subject to subpart D of this part, the performance-based rate authority pursuant to subpart E of this part, and the rate authority applicable to non-compensatory classes pursuant to subpart F of this part.
(c) A maximum of 2 percentage points of banked rate authority may be applied to a rate adjustment for any class in any 12-month period. If banked rate authority is used, it shall be subtracted from the schedule of banked rate adjustment authority as of the date of the final order accepting the rates.
(d) Subject to (b) and (c) of this section, interim rate adjustment authority may be used to make a rate adjustment pursuant to the request that led to its calculation. If interim rate adjustment authority is used to make such a rate adjustment, the interim rate adjustment authority generated pursuant to the request shall first be added to the schedule of banked rate adjustment authority pursuant to § 3010.221 as the most recent entry. Then, any interim rate adjustment authority used in accordance with this paragraph shall be subtracted from the existing banked rate adjustment authority using a first-in, first-out (FIFO) method, beginning 5 years before the instant request.
(e) Banked rate authority for a class must be applied, using a first-in, first-out (FIFO) method, beginning 5 years before the instant request.
(f) Banked rate adjustment authority calculated under this section shall lapse 5 years from the date of filing of the request leading to its calculation.
The Postal Service may request to adjust rates for market dominant products due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(1)(E). The rate adjustments are not subject to rate adjustment limitations or the restrictions on the use of unused rate adjustment authority. The rate adjustment request may not include material classification changes. The request is subject to public participation and Commission review within 90 days.
(a) Each exigent request shall include the items specified in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.
(b) A schedule of the planned rates.
(c) Calculations quantifying the increase for each affected product and class.
(d) A full discussion of the extraordinary or exceptional circumstances giving rise to the request, and a complete explanation of how both the requested overall increase and the specific rate adjustments requested relate to those circumstances.
(e) A full discussion of why the requested rate adjustments are necessary to enable the Postal Service, under best practices of honest, efficient, and economical management, to maintain and continue the development of postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs of the United States.
(f) A full discussion of why the requested rate adjustments are reasonable and equitable as among types of users of market dominant products.
(g) An explanation of when, or under what circumstances, the Postal Service expects to be able to rescind the exigent rate adjustments in whole or in part.
(h) An analysis of the circumstances giving rise to the exigent request, which should, if applicable, include a discussion of whether the circumstances were foreseeable or could have been avoided by reasonable prior action.
(i) Such other information as the Postal Service believes will assist the Commission to issue a timely determination of whether the requested rate adjustments are consistent with applicable statutory policies.
The Commission may require the Postal Service to provide clarification of its request or to provide additional information in order to gain a better understanding of the circumstances
(a) The Commission will establish a docket for each request to adjust rates due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, publish notice of the request in the
(b) The general nature of the proceeding.
(c) A reference to legal authority under which the proceeding is to be conducted.
(d) A concise description of the proposals for changes in rates, fees, and the Mail Classification Schedule.
(e) The identification of an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the docket.
(f) A specified period for public comment.
(g) Such other information as the Commission deems appropriate.
(a) The Commission will hold a public hearing on the Postal Service request. During the public hearing, responsible Postal Service officials will appear and respond under oath to questions from the Commissioners or their designees addressing previously identified aspects of the Postal Service's request and supporting information.
(b) Interested persons will be given an opportunity to submit to the Commission suggested relevant questions that might be posed during the public hearing. Such questions, and any explanatory materials submitted to clarify the purpose of the questions, should be filed in accordance with § 3001.9 of this chapter, and will become part of the administrative record of the proceeding.
(c) The timing and length of the public hearing will depend on the nature of the circumstances giving rise to the request and the clarity and completeness of the supporting materials provided with the request.
(d) If the Postal Service is unable to provide adequate explanations during the public hearing, supplementary written or oral responses may be required.
(a) Following the conclusion of the public hearings and submission of any supplementary materials, interested persons will be given the opportunity to submit written comments on:
(1) The sufficiency of the justification for an exigent rate adjustment;
(2) The adequacy of the justification for adjustments in the amounts requested by the Postal Service; and
(3) Whether the specific rate adjustments requested are reasonable and equitable.
(b) An opportunity to submit written reply comments will be given to the Postal Service and other interested persons.
Requests under this subpart seek rate relief required by extraordinary or exceptional circumstances and will be treated with expedition at every stage. It is Commission policy to provide appropriate relief as quickly as possible consistent with statutory requirements and procedural fairness. The Commission will act expeditiously on the Postal Service request, taking into account all written comments. In every instance a Commission decision will be issued within 90 days of the filing of an exigent request.
(a) Each request will identify the banked rate adjustment authority available as of the date of the request for each class of mail and the available amount for each of the preceding 5 years.
(b) Rate adjustments may use existing banked rate adjustment authority in amounts greater than the limitations described in § 3010.225.
(c) Increases will exhaust all banked rate adjustment authority for each class of mail before imposing additional rate adjustments in excess of the maximum rate adjustment for any class of mail.
This subpart establishes bands for the percentages of avoided costs that may be passed through to a customer in the form of a workshare discount. For the purpose of this subpart, the percentage passthrough for any workshare discount shall be calculated by dividing the workshare discount by the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service and expressing the result as a percentage.
(a) Except as provided in § 3010.262, all percentage passthroughs for workshare discounts must be set within the bands as specified in paragraphs (b) through (c) of this section.
(b) 75 percent to 125 percent for Periodicals.
(c) 85 percent to 115 percent for all other classes.
(a) For workshare discounts in existence on the effective date of this subpart that do not comply with the requirements of § 3010.261, there shall be a 3 year grace period from the effective date of this subpart to bring the applicable percentage passthroughs into compliance with the requirements of § 3010.261.
(b) For new workshare discounts established after the effective date of this subpart that do not comply with the requirements of § 3010.261, there shall be a 3 year grace period from the establishment of the new workshare discount to bring the applicable percentage passthroughs into compliance with the requirements of § 3010.261.
(c) In each request proposing to adjust a rate associated with a workshare discount subject to the exceptions in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, the Postal Service shall submit a plan to bring the percentage passthroughs into compliance with the requirements of § 3010.261 prior to the expiration of the exception.
39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; 3682.
This subpart imposes additional requirements whenever there is a request to add a negotiated service agreement to the market dominant product list. The additional supporting justification appearing in § 3020.121 also should be provided whenever the
(a) Each request shall also include the items specified in paragraphs (b) through (j) of this section.
(b) A copy of the negotiated service agreement.
(c) The planned effective date(s) of the planned rates.
(d) The identity of a responsible Postal Service official who will be available to provide prompt responses to requests for clarification from the Commission.
(e) A statement identifying all parties to the agreement and a description clearly explaining the operative components of the agreement.
(f) Details regarding the expected improvements in the net financial position or operations of the Postal Service (39 U.S.C. 3622(c)(10)(A)(i) and (ii)). The projection of change in net financial position as a result of the agreement shall be based on accepted analytical principles. The projection of change in net financial position as a result of the agreement shall include for each year of the agreement:
(1) The estimated mailer-specific costs, volumes, and revenues of the Postal Service absent the implementation of the negotiated service agreement;
(2) The estimated mailer-specific costs, volumes, and revenues of the Postal Service which result from implementation of the negotiated service agreement;
(3) An analysis of the effects of the negotiated service agreement on the contribution to institutional costs from mailers not party to the agreement;
(4) If mailer-specific costs are not available, the source and derivation of the costs that are used shall be provided, together with a discussion of the currency and reliability of those costs and their suitability as a proxy for the mailer-specific costs; and
(5) If the Postal Service believes the Commission's accepted analytical principles are not the most accurate and reliable methodology available:
(i) An explanation of the basis for that belief; and
(ii) A projection of the change in net financial position resulting from the agreement made using the Postal Service's alternative methodology.
(g) An identification of each component of the agreement expected to enhance the performance of mail preparation, processing, transportation, or other functions in each year of the agreement, and a discussion of the nature and expected impact of each such enhancement.
(h) Details regarding any and all actions (performed or to be performed) to assure that the agreement will not result in unreasonable harm to the marketplace (39 U.S.C. 3622(c)(10)(B)).
(i) A discussion in regard to how functionally similar negotiated service agreements will be made available on public and reasonable terms to similarly situated mailers.
(j) Such other information as the Postal Service believes will assist the Commission to issue a timely determination of whether the requested changes are consistent with applicable statutory policies.
(a) The Postal Service shall include with any request concerning a negotiated service agreement a detailed plan for providing data or information on actual experience under the agreement sufficient to allow evaluation of whether the negotiated service agreement operates in compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3622(c)(10).
(b) A data report under the plan is due 60 days after each anniversary date of implementation and shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each 12-month period the agreement has been in effect:
(1) The change in net financial position of the Postal Service as a result of the agreement. This calculation shall include for each year of the agreement:
(i) The actual mailer-specific costs, volumes, and revenues of the Postal Service;
(ii) An analysis of the effects of the negotiated service agreement on the net overall contribution to the institutional costs of the Postal Service; and
(iii) If mailer-specific costs are not available, the source and derivation of the costs that are used shall be provided, including a discussion of the currency and reliability of those costs, and their suitability as a proxy for the mailer-specific costs.
(2) A discussion of the changes in operations of the Postal Service that have resulted from the agreement. This shall include, for each year of the agreement, identification of each component of the agreement known to enhance the performance of mail preparation, processing, transportation, or other functions in each year of the agreement.
(3) An analysis of the impact of the negotiated service agreement on the marketplace, including a discussion of any and all actions taken to protect the marketplace from unreasonable harm.
39 U.S.C. 503; 3651; 3652; 3653.
(c) It shall address such matters as non-compensatory rates and failures to achieve stated goals for on-time delivery standards. A more detailed analysis is required when the Commission observed and commented upon the same matter in its Annual Compliance Determination for the previous fiscal year.
39 U.S.C. 503; 3622(a); 3652(d) and (e); 3657(c).
(c) The applicable service standard(s) for each product. If there has been a change to a service standard(s) since the previous report, a description of and reason for the change shall be provided. If there have been no changes to service standard(s) since the previous report, a certification stating this fact shall be provided.
| 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 |